BIBLE  SERVITUDE  RE-EXAMINED; 


SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  PRO-SLAVERY 
INTERPRETATIONS 


INFIDEL  OBJECTIONS. 

BY 

REV.  REUBEN  HATCH,  A.M. 


"THY  LAW  is  THE  TRUTH."— PSALMS, 


CINCINNATI: 
APPLEGATE   &   CO.,   PUBLISHERS, 

No.  43  MAIN  STREET. 
1862. 


EXTEBED  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1862,  by 
REV.  REUBEN  HATCH,  A.  M., 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern 
District  of  Ohio. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAO« 

ONE  GREAT  MISSION  OP  OUR  AGE  AND  NATION 7 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  GREAT  MISTAKE 10 

CHAPTER  III. 
A  PRIORI  ARGUMENT 15 

SEC.  1.— Three  Great  Bible  Facts 15 

Sr.C.  2.— Chattel  Slavery  and  the  Law  of  Natural  Bight 16 

SEC.  3.— Chattel  Slavery  and  the  Great  Law  of  Love 19 

SEC.  4.— Chattel  Slavery  makes  the  Bible  Contradict  Itself. 23 

CHAPTER  IV. 

DIRECT  TESTIMONY  OP  THE  BIBLE  CONCERNING  CHATTEL  SLAVERY.    27 

CHAPTER  V. 

BIBLE   HISTORY  AND  TEACHING  CONCERNING  COMMON,  OB  Nos- 
CHATTEL  SERVITUDE 30 


CHAPTER  VI. 

GENERAL  VIEW  OP  PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE 32 

Stand-point 33 

Elements  of  the  Patriarchal  Household 37 

(iii) 


446316 


iv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

PAOX 

SPECIAL  FACTS  AND  CONSIDERATIONS  CONFIRMATORY  OP  THE  FORE- 
GOING CONCLUSION,  THAT  CHATTEL  SLAVERY  HAD  NO  PLACE  IN 
THE  PATRIARCHAL  HOUSEHOLDS 43 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

PARTICULAR  EXAMINATION  OP  VARIOUS  PASSAGES  OP  SCRIPTURE 

WHICH    REFER  TO    PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE 58 

gEC-  i Noah's   Curse „ 58 

SEC.  3.— Gen.  xvii:   12,  27 72 

gEC-  4. Joseph 76 

CHAPTER  IX. 

A  WON-DERFUL  AND    SUBLIME    PROPHECY 88 

CHAPTER  X. 

ANCIENT  DARKNESS  AND  MODERN  LIGHT— MODERN  DARKNESS  AND 
ANCIENT  LIGHT 95 

CHAPTER  XI. 

CONDITION  OF  THE  JEWS  IN  EGYPT 96 

CHAPTER  XII. 
THE  MOSAIC  CODE — Introduction 100 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

PARTICULAR  EXAMINATION  OP  VARIOUS  PASSAGES  IN  THE  MOSAIC 
CODE  WHICH  REFER  TO  SERVITUDE... 102 

SEC.  1. — Circumstances  in  which  the  Mosaic  Code  was  given 102 

SEC.  2.— Institution  of  the  Passover.— Ex.  xii :  43-47 104 

"""^  SEC.  3.— Hebrew  Servants.— Ex.  xxi :  2-6 107 

"N.  SEC.  4.— Special  case  of  Contract  for  Service  and  Anticipated 

Marriage.— Ex.  xxi:  7-11 117 

**•"  8«C.  0.— Sundry  Regulations  in  regard  to  Servants.— Ex.  xxi : 

20,21;  xxi:  32;  xxii :  3 127 


CONTENTS.  V 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

PAGE 

FOREIGN  SERVANTS — Analysis  of  Lev.  xxv  and  xxvi 134' 

CHAPTER  XV. 
THE  JEWISH  FAMILY  THE  TRUE  MODEL 157 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
NEW  TESTAMENT  TEACHING  CONCERNING  SERVITUDE 159 

The  Writers  of  the  New  Testament  Jews— Hebrew  and  not 
Greek  Writers— True  Method  of  Understanding  any  Lan- 
guage— New  Testament  Usage  Main  Guide  in  Interpret- 
ing New  Testament  Language— Mistake  of  Conybeare  and 
Howson — Classic  Meaning  of  JoJxoj  — New  Testament 
Usage  of  SuvKo; — Inferences  and  Remarks 159 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

EXPOSITION  OF  PASSAGES  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WHICH  SPEAK 
OF  THE  DUTIES  OF  MASTERS 176 

Eph.  vi:9;   Col.  iv:  1 176 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
OF  THE  DUTIES  OF  SERVANTS 184 

SEC.  1.— Exposition  of  ICor.vii:   20-24 184-  "'" 

SEC.  2.— Exposition  of  Eph.  vi:   6-8 192  **" 

SEC.  3.— Exposition  of  Col.  iii:  22-25;  iv :  1 198 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
EXPOSITION  OF  1  TIM.  vi:  1,  2;  AND  TITUS, n:  9,  10 201 

CHAPTER  XX. 

INFERENCES  AND  REMARKS  SUGGESTED  BY  FOREGOING  EXPOSITIONS.  206 
r 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
EXPOSITION  OF  1  PETER,  n:  18 211 


VI  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

PAGE 

BECAPITULATION  AND  CONCLUSIONS 215 

CHAPTEK  XXIII. 

SPECIAL  CHAPTEK  ON  THE  Two  EELATIONS  (1)  OK  SERVANT  AND 
MASTER,  AND  (2)  OF  SLAVE  AND  OWNER 223 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

EEASON  WHY  so  FEW  DIRECTIONS  GIVEN  TO  MASTERS  AND  SERV- 
ANTS— ON  WHAT  GROUND  THESE  DIRECTIONS  ARE  GOOD  FOR 
SLAVES  AND  SLAVEHOLDERS — SLAVEHOLDERS  AND  THE  PRIMITIVE 
CHURCHES 230 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

SLAVERY  AS  A  "SYSTEM,"  OR  "INSTITUTION" 236 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 
ORIGIN  OF  SLAVERY 239 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 

OXESIMUS  .. *.t ....,..., 249 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

BRIEF  EXAMINATION  OF  SOME  ANTI-SLAVERY  VIEWS 261 

SEC.  1.— Unhappy  Translation  of  some  Portions  of  the  Bible 

which  relate  to  Servitude :. 261 

SBC.  2. — The  Bible  Argument  of  Dr.  Hopkins :  Its  Strength :  Its 

Weakness:  Its  Inconsistency 263 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 

BRIEF  CRITICISMS  UPON  SOME  OTHER  ANTI-SLAVERY  VIEWS 275 


BIBLE  SERVITUDE  RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ONE  GREAT  MISSION  OF  OUR  AGE  AND  NATION. 

As  the  battle  of  the  Lord  Almighty  in  the  contest 
between  truth  and  error,  right  and  wrong,  goes  on 
in  the  world,  different  ages  and  nations  will  occupy 
different  portions  of  the  field.  Some  of  the  ages,  and 
some  of  the  nations,  will  be  thrown  upon  a  mission 
of  experiment  and  adventure:  others  will  be  con- 
vulsed with  revolutions,  bringing  destruction  to  old 
systems  of  belief  and  practice :  others,  still,  will  be 
inspired  to  the  work  of  repairing  the  old  wastes, 
organizing,  reconstructing,  building  up.  It  belongs 
especially  to  some  of  the  ages  to  break  up,  and  put 
to  decay,  that  which  has  grown  old,  done  its  work, 
ripened  off,  and,  in  its  own  nature,  is  ready  to  vanish 
away.  It  is  the  special  mission  of  some  of  the  ages 
to  discover,  to  shape,  to  lay  foundations,  and  to  build 
thereon  that  which  can  never  be  moved.  There  are 
ages  of  revolution,  darkness,  confusion,  and  chaos : 
and  there  are  ages  of  quiet  advancement  in  knowl- 
edge, science,  and  art,  and  in  all  ethical  and  spiritual 


8  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

renovation  and  culture.  Each  has  its  place,  its  con- 
nections, its  own  work  to  do.  They  all  help  in  carry- 
ing the  world  forward  to  a  glorious  millennium  of 
truth  and  righteousness. 

The  whole  mission  of  this  wonderful  present  age 
can  hardly  be  fully  comprehended  and  stated  by  the 
living  actors  in  it.  Like  all  periods  in  the  world's 
history,  it  is,  undoubtedly,  only  partly  known  to 
itself. 

If  we  do  not  mistake,  it  is  a  part  of  the  mission 
of  the  present  age  to  settle  the  question  of  human 
liberty.  The  providence  of  God  has  brought  this 
question  upon  this  age  as  a  living  question  on  both 
continents.  It  can  not  be  suppressed :  an  irresistible 
providence  is  in  it.  The  great  God  of  the  nations 
is  putting  the  question,  and  opening  humanity's  great 
throbbing  heart  to  entertain  it,  and  act  upon  it. 
Thrones,  principalities,  and  powers,  Christian  or 
heathen,  royal  or  democratic,  are  utterly  powerless 
to  table  it.  Its  discussion  may  darken  the  sun,  and 
turn  the  moon  into  blood;  it  may  shake  the  stars 
from  their  places  in  the  heavens,  as  the  figs  are 
shaken  from  the  fig-tree  by  untimely  winds;  never- 
theless, it  must  go  on,  though  in  the  midst  of  blood, 
and  fire,  and  vapor  of  smoke.  This  is  one  of  the 
great  battles  of  this  our  age.  It  is  already  begun. 
The  Armageddon  of  this  battle  is,  and  is  to  be,  the 
American  continent.  Here  slavery  has  reached  its 
most  terrible  development:  here  it  has  established 
its  stoutest  throne :  and  here  is  to  be  the  heart  and 
heat  of  the  contest. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

The  great  Malakoff  of  slavery,  deemed  by  its  advo- 
cates absolutely  impregnable,  is  a  pro-slavery  inter- 
pretation of  God's  Bible.  To  this  it  has  retreated, 
and  now  bids  defiance  to  all  opposition.  By  this  it 
has  debauched  the  conscience  of  the  world.  By  the 
help  of  this  it  has  grown  insolent  and  fierce,  and 
now,  at  last,  unblushingly  seeks  to  degrade  the  labor- 
ing classes  of  all  hues  "to  the  miserable  condition  of 
chattel  slaves,  by  divine  authority.  It  makes  this 
demand  by  natural  right,  by  Bible  right,  by  all  right. 
Further  than  this,  indeed,  it  can  not  go :  further 
than  this  it  has  no  interest  to  go.  But  it  means  to 
hold  all  its  ground  by  divine  authority.  Formerly, 
it  condescended  to  bring  meat-offerings  to  conscience 
and  the  Bible :  now,  at  last,  it  has  opened  upon  the 
human  conscience  the  batteries  of  a  pro-slavery  in- 
terpretation of  the  Bible,  and  impudently  demands 
a  full  surrender. 

This  brings  the  question  of  the  Bible  and  slavery 
into  the  field :  What  are  the  relations  of  the  Bible 
to  slavery,  and  what  are  its  teachings  concerning  it  ? 
If  we  are  not  mistaken,  this  is  one  of  the  important 
questions  for  this  age  to  settle.  This  question  has 
already  been  opened.  It  has  been  discussed :  some- 
times with  a  strange  misapprehension  of  the  facts, 
and  with  a  logic  stranger  still ;  and  sometimes  with 
a  powerful  array  of  undeniable  facts,  and  a  strong 
logic.  Manifest  progress  has  been  made.  Many 
minds,  however,  still  labor  with  this  subject;  and 
many  totally  mistake  the  tenor  of  Bible  teaching 
concerning  it.  Commentators  and  Bible  expounders 


10  BIBLE    SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

have  made  grievous  mistakes   in   interpreting  the 
sacred  oracles  touching  this  subject. 

We  propose,  in  the  following  chapters,  to  make 
an  humble,  though  earnest  effort,  to  unfold  the  true 
relations  and  teachings  of  the  Bible,  both  in  regard 
to  free  servitude  and  chattel  slavery.  It  is  of  the 
utmost  importance,  at  the  present  time,  that  the 
American  people  should  have  clear  and  correct  views 
on  this  whole  subject,  that  they  should  be  familiar 
with  it,  that  individual  conscience  should  be  enlight- 
ened according  to  truth,  and  individual  practice  right. 
We  humbly  bespeak  for  these  discussions  a  careful 
and  candid  perusal. 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE   GREAT   MISTAKE. 

ONE  of  the  most  unfortunate  and  grievous  mis- 
takes of  modern  literature  is  the  pro-slavery  inter- 
pretation which  has  been  given  to  the  Holy  Bible. 
This  mistake  has  been  imposed  especially  upon  the 
Patriarchal  history,  the  Mosaic  code,  and  those  por- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  which  give  directions 
to  servants  and  masters.  The  mistake  in  this  inter- 
pretation has  been  in  confounding  the  free  or  non- 
chattel  servitude  so  frequently  alluded  to  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  with  chattel  slavery,  and  in  mistaking  the 
former  for  the  latter. 


THE   GREAT   MISTAKE.  11 

This  mistake  has  been  wide-spread.  It  runs 
through  our  Lexicons,  Commentaries,  Expositors, 
Histories,  Law  Books,  School  Books,  Newspapers, 
Lectures,  and  Sermons.  It  is  a  base  habit  of  modern 
literature  to  confound  chattel  slavery  with  Bible-ap- 
proved servitude.  It  is  not  to  our  present  purpose 
to  inquire  for  the  reasons  of  this.  The  fact  can  not 
be  disputed. 

;  Now,  we  think  it  can  be  proved  and  shown,  beyond 
all  dispute  or  question,  that  the  only  servitude  ap- 
provingly alluded  to  in  any  part  of  the  Old  or  New 
Testament,  was  a  free  or  non-chattel  servitude,  and, 
in  no  instance,  chattel  slavery.  These  are  two  very 
distinct  and  different  things.  It  introduces  endless 
mistakes,  contradictions,  and  errors,  to  confound  them 
in  interpreting  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  To  avoid  this 
confusion  in  the  present  discussion,  let  us  define  and 
separate  a  little,  in  order  that  we  may  know  whereof 


Let  it  be  carefully  noted,  in  the  first  place,  that 
freedom  and  slavery  are  not  correlative  terms.  Free- 
dom and  restraint  are  correlatives.  There  may  be  a 
large  measure  of  restraint  without  the  least  approach 
to  slavery,  and  there  may  be  a  large  measure  of  free- 
dom along  with  slavery.  In  all  civilized  society  there 
must  be  more  or  less  restraint  upon  all  the  members 
thereof.  But  this  is  not  slavery.  In  all  human  so- 
ciety, there  must,  of  necessity,  be  more  or  less  of  serv- 
itude, and  that  more  or  less  restricted.  Parents  must 
serve  their  children,  and  children  their  parents; 
teachers  must  serve  their  pupils,  and  pupils  obey 


12  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

their  teachers;  ministers  are  bound  to  serve  their 
people,  and  grateful  people  have  the  privilege  of 
"ministering"  to  those  by  whom  they  are  ministered 
unto,  "in  word  and  doctrine;"  and  all  men  are  bound 
"by  love"  "to  serve  one  another." 

Let  it  be  distinctly  observed,  also,  that  the  word 
slavery  has  come  to  have  a  definite  and  very  uni- 
form meaning.  Usage  is  much  i»  advance  of  most 
of  the  dictionaries  in  its  verdict  as  to  the  significa- 
tion of  this  word.  The  word  slavery,  now  describes 
the  condition  of  human  beings  held  or  regarded  as 
property.  This  is  what  slavery  is  in  this  country : 
this  is  the  identical  thing  which  constitutes  the  bone 
of  contention  and  controversy  between  pro-slavery 
and  anti-slavery  men,  and  this  is  the  sense  in  which 
the  word  is  used  with  great  uniformity,  except  in 
sophistical  efforts  of  political  demagogues  and  others 
to  hide  the  true  character  of  slavery.  The  slavery 
of  this  country  is  chattel  slavery,  and  all  the  slavery 
there  is  in  this  country  about  which  there  is  any  con- 
troversy, is  chattel  slavery.  Therefore,  to  avoid  all 
ambiguity,  we  shall  use  the  term  slavery,  and  the 
compound  term  chattel  slavery,  in  the  sense  indi- 
cated above. 

We  will  endeavor  to  remember,  then,  what  chat- 
tel slavery  is,  and  what  it  is  not. 

1.  It  is  not  governmental  oppression  of  free  men. 
There  maybe,  and  often  is,  much  of  this,  more  or 
less  unjust  and  wicked,  without  any  approach  to 
chattel  slavery. 

2.  It  is  not  individual  oppression  of  servants,  paid 


THE   GKEAT   MISTAKE.  13 

or  unpaid.  This  is  everywhere  common  enough, 
and  always  has  been,  but  does  not  constitute  chattel 
slavery. 

3.  It  is  not  social  oppression  of  classes  of  people 
whose  circumstances  are  providentially  unfortunate, 
either  through  their  own  vices  and  follies,  or  tho 
misfortunes  and  misdeeds  of  their  ancestors ;  or  nei- 
ther.    Abundant  fxamples  of  this,  involving  great 
wrong,  are  to  be  found  in  our  large  cities. 

4.  Nor  again,  is  it  the  punishment  of  criminals  for 
their  crimes.     This  may  involve  close  confinement 
and  hard  labor  for  others  without  compensation,  but 
does  not  constitute  chattel  slavery. 

5.  Nor  yet  is  it  restriction  of  rights  and  privileges 
on  account  of  peculiar  circumstances.     Foreigners, 
under  any  government,  may  be  circumscribed  in  their 
privileges  very  much,  and  yet  by  no  means  reduced 
to  a  state  of  chattel  slavery. 

6.  The  rendering  of  service  without  remuneration, 
which  service  is  even  rendered  with  great  reluctance, 
is  not,  and  does  not  constitute  chattel  slavery. 

7.  Unqualified  subordination  to  unlimited  author- 
ity, as  in  the  case  of  sailors  on  board  of  ships,  and 
as  was  the  condition  of  children  in  relation  to  their 
fathers  among  the  old  Romans,  does  not  make  chat- 
tel slavery. 

8.  Filial  subordination   and  subjection  does  not 
constitute  chattel  slavery. 

9.  Apprenticeship  is  not  chattel  slavery. 

10.  Moral  and  spiritual  enslavement  to  appetite, 
lust,  and  passion,  is  not  chattel  slavery. 


14  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

There  may  be  great  oppression  and  great  wicked- 
ness connected  with  any  or  all  of  these  things,  and 
others  like  them,  yet  in  no  such  things  as  these  is 
chattel  slavery  to  be  found.  The  oppression  in  them 
is  the  oppression  of  people  unchattelized,  and  there 
is  neither  slave  nor  slavery  in  them. 

It  will  bear  to  be  repeated :  chattel  slavery  is  the 
chattelizing  of  human  beings* — it  is  the  regarding, 
treating,  and  holding  of  human  beings  as  property. 
The  oppressing  of  free  people,  whether  they  be  serv- 
ants, masters,  or  kings,  however  wicked  and  wrong 
it  may  be,  is  not  chattel  slavery.  The  restricting 
of  the  privileges  of  people,  for  adequate  reasons  in 
the  circumstances,  is  not  chattel  slavery.  Chattel 
slavery  is  the  propertyizing  of  human  beings.  This 
is  its  prime,  essential  element.  This  is  what  con- 
stitutes the  burden,  the  entity  of  the  thing.  It  is 
the  same  when  imposed  upon  a  king,  as  when  im- 
posed upon  a  servant:  it  is  the  same  when  imposed 
upon  a  black  man  as  when  imposed  upon  a  white  man. 
As  a  practical  fact,  it  stands  alone  in  the  world :  in 
all  our  investigations  and  reasonings  concerning  it, 
let  us  keep  it  isolated  and  separated  from  every  thing 
else.  Especially  let  us  endeavor  to  keep  it  distinct 
from  free  or  non-chattel  servitude.  This  latter  serv- 
itude, more  or  less  restricted,  the  Bible  recognizes, 
provides  for  and  makes  laws  for;  the  other,  chattel 
slavery,  it  knows  nothing  of  except  to  condemn  and 
prohibit  it.  Free  or  non-chattel  servitude,  more  or 
less  restricted,  is  a  benevolent  necessity  of  human 
society;  chattel  slavery,  wherever  it  prevails,  is  its 


A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT.  15 

direst  curse.  The  former  the  Bible  recognizes  and 
sanctions;  the  latter  it  condemns  and  prohibits. 
This,  a  careful  examination  of  Patriarchal  history, 
the  Mosaic  code,  and  those  portions  of  the  New 
Testament  which  give  instructions  to  servants  and 
masters,  will,  we  think,  abundantly  show. 


CHAPTER   III. 

A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT. 

SECTION  1. — Three  Great  Bible  Facts. 

IN  opening  the  Bible,  as  God's  book,  three  great 
facts  stand  revealed  before  us. 

1.  As  God's  book,  the  Bible  is,  and  must  be,  con- 
sistent with  itself.     All  its  particular  precepts  and 
injunctions  must  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  its  fun- 
damental principles :  and  all  these  must  be  in  har- 
mony with  one  another. 

2.  All  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  must  agree  with 
the  great  law  of  love :  since,  on  the  authority  of  the 
great  Teacher  himself,  this  law  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  all  that  the  Bible  contains.     There  is,  and  can  be, 
nothing  in  the  Bible,  which  God  has  sanctioned,  in- 
consistent with  this  law. 

3.  As  God's  book,  the   Bible  must  be  consistent 
with  the  law  of  natural  right. 

Indeed,  the  law  of  natural  right  is  nothing  else 


16  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

than  the  great  law  of  love,  as  announced  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures. 

No  man  in  his  senses  can  deny  any  of  these  state- 
ments. If  the  Bible  is  God's  book,  it  must  be  con- 
sistent with  itself:  it  must  be  consistent  with  the 
great  law  of  love  :  it  must  be  consistent  with  natural 
right.  Any  interpretation  which  makes  the  Bible 
contradict  itself,  any  interpretation  which  makes  its 
teachings  inconsistent  with  the  great  law  of  love,  any 
interpretation  which  brings  it  into  conflict  with  the 
law  of  natural  right,  must  be  false. 

Thus  far,  all  is  clear,  on  the  supposition  that  the 
Bible  is  God's  book.  If,  then,  chattel  slavery,  or  any 
thing  else,  makes  the  Bible  contradict  itself,  the  Bible 
does  not,  and  can  not,  sanction  it,  or  that  thing :  if 
chattel  slavery,  or  any  thing  else,  makes  the  Bible 
violate  the  law  of  love,  which  is  professedly  its  own 
fundamental  principle,  the  Bible  does  not,  and  can 
not,  sanction  it,  or  that  thing :  if  chattel  slavery,  or 
any  thing  else,  brings  the  Bible  into  conflict  with  the 
law -of  natural  right,  the  Bible  does  not,  and  can  not, 
sanction  it,  or  that  thing. 

These  conclusions  are  inevitable. 

SEC.  2. — Chattel  Slavery  and  the  Law  of  Natural 
Eight. 

Let  us,  then,  in  the  first  place,  confront  chattel 
slavery,  face  to  face  with  the  law  of  natural  right. 
Chattel  slavery,  mark,  is  the  chattelizing  of  human 
beings.  The  property-element  is  that  which  distinct- 
ively characterizes  and  constitutes  it.  As  a  matter 


A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT.  17 

of  fact,  this  element  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  slave- 
holding  enactments,  of  all  fugitive  slave  laws,  of  all 
judicial  decisions  on  the  side  of  slavery,  and  of  all 
pro-slavery  reasonings  relating  thereto. 

And  to  call  chattel  slavery  a  mere  paternal  guard- 
ianship, or  to  give  it  any  other  smooth  and  innocent 
name,  is  the  most  paltry  and  shallow  quibbling  to 
which  partisan  sycophancy  or  cotton  divinity  ever 
descended.  Chattel  slavery  is  the  reducing  of  human 
beings  to  the  category  of  property.  Now,  this  is 
nothing  else  and  nothing  less  than  direct  and  gross 
trespass  upon  inalienable,  personal,  natural  rights. 

It  is  a  somewhat  which  no  human  being  ever  has, 
or  ever  can  have,  the  least  right  to  do  to  his  fellow. 
I  have  not,  and  by  no  possibility  can  I  ever  have,  the 
least  imaginable  right  to  hold  or  treat  my  neighbor 
as  property :  and  he  has  not,  and  never  can  have,  any 
right  to  regard,  or  hold,  or  treat  me  as  property. 
No  combination  of  men,  no  extent  of  governmental 
authority  has  any  such  right.  The  right  can  not 
exist  any  more  than  the  right  to  regard,  hold,  or 
treat  human  beings  as  brutes  can  exist.  There  is  no 
power  in  heaven,  earth,  or  hell,  so  great  as  to  possess 
the  right  to  regard,  hold,  and  treat  human  beings, 
God-made  above  the  brutes,  and  God-imaged,  as 
brutes.  No  such  right  is  either  possible  or  allowable. 
To  do  so  is  direct  personal  wrong,  per  se,  to  those  so 
held  and  regarded.  Exactly  in  the  same  way-,  and 
for  the  same  reason,  the  right  to  chattelize  human 
beings  never  did,  and  never  can,  exist.  It  is  direct 
trespass  upon  rights  that  inhere  in  universal  human- 
2 


18  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

ity.  It  is  gross  wrong,  and  can  never  be  perpe- 
trated without  involving  gross  wrong.  It  is  always 
sin  per  se,  and  no  times,  places,  or  circumstances  can 
make  it  any  thing  else.  It  is  always  unlawful  and 
forbidden  trespass  upon  that  manhood  which  never 
deserts  a  living,  breathing  child  of  Adam. 

And  this  is  the  verdict  of  universal  conscience. 
There  is  not  a  living  man  on  the  face  of  the  earth, 
whose  manhood  has  not  been  crushed  out  of  him  by 
gross  abuse,  who  would  not  instantly  know  and  feel 
himself  greatly  wronged,  in  the  first  attempt  of  his 
fellow  to  treat  him  as  property.  Every  living  con- 
science knows  absolutely  that  this  is  trespass  upon 
God-given  manhood,  and  palpable  violation  of  the 
great  law  of  natural  right.  There  is  not  a  slave- 
holder in  all  slaverydom  that  does  not  know  this; 
and  whose  moral  sense,  when  the  hellish  screws  of 
this  degradation  should  be  wrenched  down  upon  him- 
self, would  not  be  startled  and  offended,  and  cry  out, 
with  unmistakable  authority,  "Hands  off!" 

So  testifies  universal  humanity.  Indeed,  there  is 
not  a  plainer  violation  of  the  great  law  of  natural 
right  perpetrated  under  the  light  of  the  sun,  nor  in 
the  hidden  darkness  of  midnight,  than  the  chattel- 
izing  of  human  beings.  To  chattelize  the  infant  in 
the  cradle,  is  to  violate  its  Adamic  manhood:  it  is 
trespass  upon  the  sacred  dignity  of  its  living  and 
distinctive  creatureship  as  coming  from  God  Al- 
mighty's hand.  It  can  no  more  be  done  without 
wrong,  than  you  can  regard  your  brother  as  a  dumb 
brute,  or  treat  him  maliciously  and  selfishly,  without 


A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT.  19 

wrong.  To  chattelize  the  full-grown  man  or  woman, 
is  direct  trespass  upon  natural  and  inherent  rights, 
and  can  never  be  perpetrated  without  sin,  and  that 
too,  sin  per  se,  even  though  done  to  the  meanest 
wretch  that  ever  lived,  and  in  the  deepest  bosom 
of  the  lowest  depths  of  the  bottomless  pit.  It  is 
pure  sin  always  and  everywhere,  and  neither  man 
nor  devil  can  make  it  any  thing  else,  any  more  than 
the  malicious  and  selfish  treatment  of  God's  rational 
creatures  can  be  made  any  thing  else  than  sin. 

Therefore,  by  the  surest  sequence,  since  the  Bible, 
as  God's  book,  does  not  and  can  not  sanction  any 
thing  that  violates  the  law  of  natural  right,  and 
since,  as  we  have  seen,  chattel  slavery  is  palpable 
and  gross  trespass  upon  the  law  of  natural  right, 
the  Bible  does  not,  and  can  not,  give  it  any  counte- 
nance whatever. 

SEC.  3. — Chattel  /Slavery,  and  the  Great  Law  of  Love. 

The  Bible,  as  God's  indivisible  revelation  of  truth 
to  man,  has  its  fundamental  principle  of  law  and 
doctrine.  That  principle  is  the  law  of  love. 

This  is  not  only  the  great  principle  which  under- 
lies the  whole  Bible,  and  upon  which  all  its  teach- 
ings, from  Genesis  to  Kevelation,  rest,  but  it  is  also 
the  great  fundamental  principle  of  the  entire  moral 
government  of  God.  The  first  and  simplest  expan- 
sion of  this  principle  is  that  made  by  Jesus  Christ : 
"Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart;"  and,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self." On  this  moral  couplet  "hang  all  the  law  and 


20  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

the  prophets ; "  and  it  may  now  be  added,  with  per- 
fect truthfulness,  all  the  gospel  too.  This  is  the 
divine  announcement  of  the  one  great  law  of  love: 
love  as  a  principle  of  action — love  which  is  true  be- 
nevolence— love  which  is  good-will  to  being,  unself- 
ish, impartial,  universal.  This  principle  covers  all 
possible  right,  and,  by  implication,  interdicts  all  pos- 
sible wrong.  With  this  principle  the  entire  Bible 
harmonizes,  and  never  departs  from  it  in  any  of  its 
laws,  doctrines,  instructions,  or  precepts.  Every 
word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord, 
on  all  moral  questions  and  subjects,  must  be  based 
on  this  principle,  and  agree  with  it. 

This  principle,  therefore,  is  always  a  safe  guide  in 
the  study  and  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  so  far  as 
we  are  able  to  understand  and  apply  it.  Any  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible  which  can  be  fully  and  fairly 
shown  to  be  in  conflict  with  this  principle,  must,  of 
necessity,  be  wrong.  Any  interpretation  which  ar- 
rays God's  teachings,  arrangements,  permissions,  or 
admissions,  in  regard  to  the  social  relations  of  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  against  this  principle,  must  be  erroneous. 

Now  this  principle,  be  it  remembered,  recognizes 
and  protects  all  rights,  and  forbids  all  trespass  upon 
rights.  It  demands  that  every  being  shall  be  con- 
sidered and  treated  benevolently,  and  all  his  rights 
sacredly  regarded.  It  protects  all  rights,  and  con- 
demns all  trespass  upon  rights.  Hence  it  does  and 
forever  must  recognize  and  defend  the  individual 
and  personal  manhood  of  every  child  of  Adam.  It 
allows  no  trespass  upon  that  manhood  or  any  of  its 


A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT.  21 

rights.  For  example,  it  does  not,  and  it  can  not, 
allow  that  rational  creatures,  made  in  the  divine 
image,  should  be  regarded  and  treated  as  brutes. 
It  does  not  allow  this  from  fellow  creature;  it  does 
not  allow  it  from  angel;  it  does  not  allow  it  from 
God.  Such  treatment  is  both  a  lie  and  a  direct 
trespass  upon  inherent,  unalienated,  and  unalienable 
rights.  Hence,  by  no  possibility  can  the  law  of  love 
ever  allow  any  such  thing.  It  must  eternally  con- 
demn it. 

Nor  again,  example  second,  does  this  law  permit 
either  God  or  man  to  treat  the  creature  maliciously 
and  selfishly.  Neither  devils  in  perdition,  nor  wicked 
criminals  of  earth,  can  be  treated  by  any  being,  or 
combination  of  beings,  maliciously  and  selfishly,  with- 
out direct  violation  of  the  great  law  of  love.  All 
such  treatment  is  sin  per  se,  sin  in  itself,  and  nothing 
but  sin.  Criminals  may  be  punished,  but  always  for 
adequate  reasons,  and  at  the  behests  of  the  law  of 
love.  No  being  can  be,  or  become,  so  guilty  as  to  be 
beyond  the  circle  of  the  great  law  of  good- will.  Even 
devils  have  a  sacred  creatureship,  which  ill-will  can 
not  invade  without  rebuke  and  condemnation  from 
the  great  moral  law  of  the  universe.  Then,  surely, 
this  must  be  true  of  angels  and  probationary  men. 

In  like  manner,  example  third,  the  chattelizing  of 
human  beings  is,  in  itself,  a  direct  violation  of  the 
great  law  of  love.  From  the  statements  and  explana- 
tions already  made,  this  is  perfectly  manifest.  Chat- 
tel slavery,  as  we  have  seen,  is  direct  trespass  upon 
inherent,  unforfeited,  and  unforfeitable  rights,  and 


22  BIBLE   SERVITUDE  EE-EXAMINED. 

hence,  since  the  law  of  love  eternally  forbids  such 
trespass,  it  must  be  only  and  simply  violation  of  that 
law.  Good-will  to  my  neighbor  never  does,  and  never 
can,  lead  me  to  invade  sacred  and  inalienable  rights. 
If,  by  crime,  he  forfeits  certain  rights  and  privileges, 
neither  by  crime  nor  by  any  thing  else  can  he  forfeit 
his  right  to  manhood.  This  right  is  absolutely  inal- 
ienable. It  lies  wholly  beyond  the  reach  of  forfeiture. 
No  being  in  the  universe  can  trench  upon  this  .right, 
without  trampling  under  foot  the  Scripture  law  of 
love.  Chattel  slavery  lays  hold  of  this  right,  and 
lays  it  .in  the  dust ;  hence  it  tramples  down  the  great 
law  of  love ;  and  hence,  again,  it  must  be  contrary  to 
all  Scripture,  for  all  Scripture,  both  general  and  par- 
ticular, agrees  perfectly  with  this  law. 

This  reasoning  is  so  simple,  so  plain,  so  conclusive, 
so  unanswerable,  that  more  words  need  not  be  ex- 
pended to  make  it  plainer.  The  Scripture  law  of 
love  must  forever  interdict  all  chattelizing  of  human 
beings.  And,  in  spite  of  all  learned  logomachy  to 
make  something  else  appear,  I  verily  believe  the 
Christian,  moral  sense  of  the  world  does  so  decide. 
The  best  piety  of  the  Christian  world  does  not  judge 
that  the  law  of  love  sets  men  to  chattelizing,  enslav- 
ing, their  fellow  beings :  that  such  nefarious  invasion 
of  unforfeited  and  inalienable  rights  is  a  beautiful, 
heavenly,  and  Christ-like  exemplification  and  fruit  ofj 
disinterested,  unselfish,  pure,  and  holy  love !  It 
never  has  judged  thus,  and  it  never  will,  for  the  very 
good  reason  that  such  judgment  is  a  lie. 


A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT.  23 

SEC.  4. — Chattel  Slavery  makes  the  Bible  contradict 
itself. 

It  follows  inevitably,  from  the  foregoing  reasonings 
and  conclusions,  that  the  Bible  can  not  give  any  sanc- 
tion to  chattel  slavery  without  loading  itself  with 
endless  contradictions.  The  following  examples  will 
sufficiently  illustrate  and  confirm  this  remark : 

1.  The  Bible,  as  all  that  read  it  well  know,  every- 
where condemns  all  oppression  in  the  strongest  lan- 
guage, and  never  spares  its  terrible  threatenings  of 
the  most  fearful  judgments  upon  the  oppressor. 
God's  rebuke  against  oppression,  in  all  forms,  as 
gross  sin  and  gross  violation  of  the  divine  law,  liter- 
ally runs  through  the  entire  Bible.  Moses  wrote: 
"  Thou  shalt  not  defraud  thy  neighbor,  neither  rob 
him;"*  "Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stranger  nor  op- 
press him;"f  "  Ye  shall  not  oppress  one  another ;"J 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself ;"§  and 
much  more  of  the  same  import.  He  frequently  refers 
the  Jews  to  their  own  experience  under  the  hand  of 
the  oppressor  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  as  teaching  them 
to  "  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,"  as  a  strong  motive 
to  deter  them  from  practicing  oppression  upon  their 
fellow-beings,  even  though  they  were  strangers  and 
Gentiles.  The  command  is  most  express,  and  oft 
repeated  throughout  the  Pentateuch,  to  the  Jews,  that 
they  should  "  do  no  unrighteousness  "  either  to  "  neigh- 
bor" or  "stranger." 

Now,  who  does  not  know  that  there  is  no  oppression 

*  Lev.  xix :  13          f  Bx-  **" '  21.          \  Lev.  xxv  :  14, 17.  I  Lev.  xix :  18. 


24  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

'done  under  the  sun  more  unrighteous,  more  oppres- 
sive, more  grievous  to  be  borne,  more  unlawful  and 
outrageous,  than  that  which  begins  by  trampling  the 
very  manhood  of  the  rational  creature  in  the  dust, 
and  continues  only  by  a  continuous  perpetration  of 
the  same  villainous  trespass  upon  God-given  rights  ? 
Who  does  not  know  that  this  is  the  highest  kind  of 
robbery?  There  is  no  other  robbery  that  can  be 
perpetrated  upon  a  human  being,  that  deprives  him 
of  so  much  that  is  good  and  valuable  to  him,  as  that 
involved  in  chattelizing  him.  It  implies  in  it  univer- 
sal trespass  upon  all  rights.  It  is  the  perfection  of 
oppression  upon  men,  to  reduce  them  to  the  condition 
of  property,  and  use  them  as  sucn.  Everybody  knows 
this.  And  the  man  that  does  not  know  this,  or  pre- 
tends that  he  does  not,  only  needs  to  be  put  under 
this  terrible  millstone  of  wrong  to  bring  him  fully 
to  his  senses. 

Therefore,  if  Moses  has  anywhere  given  any  sanc- 
tion to  chattel  slavery,  either  among  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
he  has  flatly  contradicted  himself.  He  has  both  for- 
bidden all  oppression  and  sanctioned  the  most  abom- 
inable and  unlawful  stamp  of  oppression  that  ever 
cursed  the  earth.  This  contradiction  can  be  obviated 
only  by  denying  that  chattel  slavery  is  oppression, 
which  is  a  manifest  falsehood,  or  by  denying  that 
Moses  does  sanction  it,  which  latter  assertion  both  is, 
and  can  be  shown  to  be,  the  truth. 

In  like  manner,  the  prophets,  and  the  writers  of 
the  New  Testament,  abound  in  the  strongest  denun- 
ciations of  oppression  and  the  oppressor,  the  language 


A   PRIORI   ARGUMENT.  25 

of  which  is  oftentimes  most  terrific.  All  along,  either 
expressly  or  implicitly,  God  promises  to  "  be  a  swift 
witness"  "against  those  that  oppress  the  hireling  in 
his  wages,  the  widow  and  the  fatherless,  and  that 
turn  aside  the  stranger  from  his  right."*  How  com- 
plete the  contradiction,  if,  through  these  writers,  in 
the  same  breath,  God  has  given  warrant  for  that 
which  is  the  climax  of  air  oppressions !  admitted  and 
known  to  be  such  by  the  universal,  moral  sense  of 
the  race ! 

2.  Again,  multitudes  of  particular  precepts  utterly 
subvert  chattel  slavery,  and  make  it  impossible. 
Quotations  under  this  head  might  be  extended  to  fill 
a  volume.  Examples  abound  on  almost  every  page 
of  the  Bible.  Only  one  or  two,  however,  can  be 
given  here.  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thy- 
self." No  man  can  obey  this  command,  in  its  true 
spirit,  and  make  merchandise  of  his  neighbor. 

"Masters  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is 
just  and  equal."  No  master  can  do  that,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  regard,  and  treat,  and  hold  his  serv- 
ants as  property.  No  man  can,  for  a  moment,  hold 
his  servants  as  chattel  slaves,  without  perpetrating 
the  grossest  injustice:  no  man  can  do  it  without  sub- 
verting all  righteous  equality.  By  no  possibility  can 
any  one  hold  any  but  free  servants,  in  obedience  to 
this  precept. 

In  like  manner,  multitudes  of  other  particular 
precepts  of  the  Bible  run  directly  under  chattel 
slavery,  subverting  it  utterly.  Obedience  to  these 


26  -    BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

precepts  is  altogether  incompatible  with  the  chattel- 
izing  of  our  brother  man. 

3.  The  Bible  expressly  forbids  chattel  slavery,  under 
penalty  of  death,  and  so  can  nowhere  give  it  sanction 
without  flatly  contradicting  its  own  positive  injunc- 
tions. "  If  a  man  be  found  stealing  any  of  his  breth- 
ren of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  maketh  merchandise 
of  him,  or  selleth  him;  then  that  thief  shall  die; 
and  thou  shalt  put  evil  away  from  among  you." — 
Deut.  xxiv :  7.  Beyond  all  contradiction,  the  thing 
forbidden  here  is  chattel  slavery :  it  is  treated  as  an 
evil,  (a  moral  evil,)  to  be  put  away:  the  man  who 
should  be  guilty  of  this  evil  is  pronounced  a  "thief:" 
the  penalty  for  such  theft  is  capital  punishment, 
showing  that  the  crime  is  a  capital  one. 

Now,  if  any  one  demurs  from  all  this,  by  saying 
that  this  law  related  only  to  the  chattelizing  of  Jews; 
he  is  respectfully  but  earnestly  referred  to  the  general 
statute  in  Ex.  xxi :  16,  under  which  the  specific  en- 
actment in  Deuteronomy  belongs.  "And  he  that 
stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in 
his  hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  "  A  man  " 
— any  man.  This  is  "  the  law,"  which  Paul  affirms 
in  1  Tim.  i:  10,  was  made  for  "men-stealers."  Here 
then,  we  have,  first  in  God's  Bible,  the  universal 
statute  forbidding  chattel  slavery  on  pain  of  death : 
and  second,  lest  the  Jews  should  overlook  a  command 
so  important,  a  specific  statute  guarding  every  Jew 
in  particular,  as  the  general  statute  guarded  every 
man  of  the  race,  from  this  most  ruinous  and  grievous 
of  all  violations  of  the  second  table  of  the  great  law 


DIRECT   TESTIMONf.  27 

of  love.  In  both  cases  alike,  the  crime  is  considered 
a  capital  offense,  with  capital  punishment  for  its 
penalty.  Chattel  slavery  can  begin,  and  can  be  per- 
petuated only  by  man-stealing,  and  making  merchan- 
dise of  those  so  stolen.  Man-stealing  is  in  it,  every 
moment  of  its  existence.  If  the  Bible  allows  this,  it 
allows  that  which  is  a  manifest  contradiction  of  its 
own  express  injunctions." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

DIRECT  TESTIMONY  OF  THE  BIBLE  CONCERNING  CHAT- 
TEL SLAVERY. 

PRECISELY  in  accordance  with  the  foregoing  state- 
ments, reasonings,  and  conclusions,  is  the  direct  and 
positive  testimony  of  the  Bible  concerning  chattel 
slavery.  With  earnest  and  solemn  emphasis,  it  cat- 
alogues it,  as  we  have  just  seen,  as  a  crime — and  as 
a  capital  crime.  This  testimony  is  brief,  but  un- 
equivocal, decisive,  and  conclusive.  Great  and  gross 
crimes  are  frequently  disposed  of  in  God's  Scripture 
in  few  words.  There  are  iniquities  on  this  earth  of 
which,  the  pen  of  inspiration  declares,  it  is  a  shame 
even  to  speak. 

This  direct  and  express  testimony  ot  the  Bible 
concerning  chattel  slavery  is  not  to  be  found,  how- 
ever, in  either  Old  or  New  Testament  legislation 
concerning  free  or  non-chattel  servitude.  Entirely 
separate  from  this,  it  stands  by  itself  alone.  It  is 


28  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

testimony  which  fully  grapples  with  the  subject,  and 
disposes  of  it  at  once. 

Of  chattel  slavery,  God  said  to  the  Jews,  by  the 
mouth  of  their  great  law-giver,  Moses:  "And  he 
that  stealeth  a  man,  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be 
found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 
—Ex.  xxi:  16. 

But  lest  the  Jews  should  overlook  a  command  so 
important,  this  general  statute  is  reiterated  in  a  spe- 
cific form,  to  guard  every  Jew  in  particular,  as  the 
general  statute  guarded  every  individual  of  the  race, 
from  this  most  ruinous  and  grievous  of  all  violations 
of  the  second  table  of  the  great  law  of  love.  "If  a 
man  be  found  stealing  any  of  his  brethren  of  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  maketh  merchandise  of  him,  or 
selleth  him ;  then  that  thief  shall  die ;  and  thou  shalt 
put  evil  away  from  among  you."- — Deut.  xxiv:  7. 

Comment  upon  these  passages  is  hardly  necessary. 
There  is  no  mistaking  the  subject  spoken  of  in  these 
passages:  there  is  no  mistaking  that  which  is  said. 
They  contain  the  sum  and  substance  of  Mosaic  legis- 
lation on  the  subject  of  chattel  slavery. 

This  legislation  seems  to  have  been  anticipatory, 
and  designed  to  meet  individual  cases  of  crime  of 
this  sort,  that  might  possibly  arise  in  the  future  his- 
tory of  the  Jews.  It  contemplates  no  existing  system 
of  iniquity,  inasmuch  as  no  such  system  was  in  ex- 
istence when  these  statutes  were  delivered.  It  is 
brief,  positive,  and  final.  Bible  prophets,  preachers, 
and  historians  recognize  this  as  God's  authoritative 
legislation  on  this  subject. 


DIEECT   TESTIMONY.  29 

This  legislation  is  distinctly  alluded  to  and  in- 
dorsed by  the  great  apostle  and  leading  writer  of 
the  New  Testament,  in  the  following  passage :  "  But 
we  know  that  the  law  is  good,  if  a  man  use  it  law- 
fully ;  knowing  this,  that  the  law  is  not  made  for  a 
righteous  man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  disobedient, 
for  the  ungodly  and  for  sinners,  for  unholy  and  pro- 
fane, for  murderers  of.  fathers  and  murderers  of 
mothers,  for  man-slayers,  for  whoremongers,  for  them 
that  defile  themselves  with  mankind,  for  men-stealers, 
for  liars,  for  perjured  persons,  and  if  there  be  any 
other  thing  contrary  to  sound  doctrine." — 1  Tim.  i: 
8,  9,  10. 

The  "  law  "  referred  to  in  this  passage  is,  unques- 
tionably, the  law  of  Moses.  That  particular  portion, 
of  it  which  was  "  made  "  "  for  men-stealers  "  must  be 
the  identical  statutes  which  we  have  quoted  above. 
Hence,  the  apostle  fully  indorses  the  Mosaic  law 
concerning  chattel  slavery.  It  is  especially  worthy 
of  remark  concerning  this  passage,  that  the  word 
"men-stealers"  means,  etymologically,  men-sellers,  or 
properly,  enslavers,  showing  that  Paul  distinctly  re- 
cognized the  stealing  and  selling  as  one  and  the  same 
offense."* 

We  have,  then,  the  direct,  positive  testimony  of 
both  Testaments  concerning  chattel  slavery  as  great 
and  gross  crime,  unequivocally  and  positively  for- 
bidden. The  law  of  natural  right,  the  great  law  of 
love,  and  the  express,  positive  testimony  of  the  Bible 
are  perfectly  agreed  in  their  verdict  concerning  it. 

*  Pres.  E.  B.  Fairfield. 


BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  V. 

BIBLE  HISTORY  AND  TEACHING  CONCERNING  COMMON 
OR  NON-CHATTEL  SERVITUDE. 

THE  foregoing  statements,  reasonings,  and  conclu- 
sions have  never  yet  been  met,  face  to  face,  and 
shown  to  be  faulty  or  erroneous.  They  never  can 
be.  Nevertheless,  the  advocates  of  chattel  slavery, 
and  multitudes  of  others,  imagine  that,  somehow,  all 
this  is  set  aside  as  containing  some  hidden  fallacy, 
by  the  supposed  fact  that  certain  particular  precepts 
and  laws  in  the  Bible  do  recognize  and  sanction 
the  existence  of  chattel  slavery;  that  they  were  de- 
signed by  the  Almighty  to  regulate  it  as  an  admis- 
sible and  lawful  institution;  and  that  when,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  is  so  regulated,  it  is,  for  the  time 
being,  at  least,  lawful  and  right,  and  receives  the 
Divine  approbation. 

In  this  false  notion  lies  the  great  mistake  in  inter- 
preting the  teachings  of  fche  Bible  concerning  chattel 
slavery.  As  already  observed,  this  mistake  consists 
in  confounding  chattel  slavery  with  righteous,  non- 
chattel  servitude,  and  in  interpreting  the  teachings  of 
the  Bible  concerning  the  latter  as  if  they  related  to 
the  former.  In  this  way  these  entire  teachings  have 
been  wrested  and  abused  to  the  service  of  chattel 
slavery :  in  this  way  God's  freely-expressed  sanction 
of  common,  or  non-chattel  servitude,  has  been  stolen 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.          31 

for  the  expressly  prohibited  iniquity  of  chattel  slavery. 
In  this  way  divine  sanction  for  chattel  slavery  has 
been  found  in  the  righteous,  non-chattel  servitude 
of  the  Patriarchs,  in  the  laws  and  regulations  of  the 
Mosaic  code  concerning  common  servitude,  and  in 
the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  same 
subject.  By  this  falsehood,  as  the  cuckoo  appropri- 
ates the  nest  of  her  neighbor  in  which  to  incubate 
and  nestle  her  own  young,  chattel  slavery  has  found 
a  nesting  place  in  God's  Word.  Nowhere  else  in  the 
Divine  Word  is  to  be  found  a  place  even  for  the  solo 
of  its  foot.  It  maintains  its  place  here  only  by  false 
interpretation,  and  by  arraying  one  portion  of  the 
Bible  against  other  portions. 

This  makes  it  necessary  to  examine  the  whole 
subject  of  common  or  non-chattel  servitude,  as  that 
subject  is  alluded  to  and  treated  of  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures.  We  propose  to  prosecute  this  examina- 
tion under  the  three  following  heads,  in  their  order, 
namely,  Patriarchal  Servitude,  Mosaic  Servitude,  and 
New  Testament  Servitude.  In  no  one  of  these  shall 
we  find  chattel  slavery.  The  true  title,  therefore, 
of  this  examination  is,  "  Bible  History  and  Teaching 
concerning  Common,  or  Non-chattel  Servitude." 


32  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

GENERAL  VIEW  OF  PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE. 

IN  the  history  of  the  Patriarchs,  as  given  by  Moses, 
allusions  to  servitude  frequently  appear.  This  is  as 
might  have  been  expected :  for,  as  already  intimated, 
servitude,  of  necessity,  belongs  to  all  human  society, 
and  probably  to  all  society  of  good  and  holy  beings 
in  heaven  and  everywhere  else.  Indeed,  what  is 
obedience  to  the  great  law  of  love,  other  than  heartily 
willing,  and  sincerely  doing,  service  for  others  ?  What 
an  indefatigable  servant  to  the  universe  which  his 
benevolence  has  built,  is  the  great  Father  of  all ! 
The  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  great  representative  of 
the  Father,  came  into  this  world  "not  to  be  minis- 
tered unto" — not  to  receive  service — but  "to  minis- 
ter," to  render  service.  And  are  not  the  angels  "  all 
ministering  spirits"  —  serving  messengers  —  "sent 
forth"  to  do  service  "for  them  who  shall  be  heirs  of 
salvation  ?  "  In  the  church  of  Christ,  too,  the  great 
law  is,  "  by  love  serve  one  another." 

Indeed,  service-rendering  is  the  noblest  form  of 
rational  and  moral  activity.  In  the  very  constitution 
of  human  society  there  must  be  service,  compensated 
or  uncompensated,  servitude  in  different  forms.  In 
the  early  history  of  the  race,  before  the  flood,  and  on 
after  the  flood  in  Patriarchal  times,  there  was  servi- 
tude, of  course.  Servitude,  in  some  form,  more  or 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  33 

:ess  restricted,  is  to  be  looked  for  in  all  ages  of  the 
world,  and  in  all  places  where  human  beings  dwell. 
But  this,  by  no  means,  implies  the  existence  of  chattel 
slavery.  This  is  often  assumed,  but  always  without 
good  reason.  The  having  of  servants  is  one  thing; 
the  chattelizing  of  servants,  or  of  other  people,  is 
quite  another  thing. 

The  question,  therefore,  for  us  to  keep  in  mind  all 
along  in  this  examination  of  Patriarchal  servitude, 
is  not  whether  servitude  actually  existed  in  the  fami- 
lies of  Abraham  and  the  Patriarchs,  for  this  is  fully 
admitted ;  but  whether  the  servitude  which  existed 
there  was  the  servitude  of  freemen,  or  the  servitude 
of  chattel  slaves.  A  true  view  of  Patriarchal  servi- 
tude will  show  that  it  must  have  been  the  former, 
and  could  not  possibly  have  been  the  latter. 

Stand-point. 

In  looking  in  upon  the  social  relations,  and  in  ex- 
amining the  condition  of  the  different  members  of 
Patriarchal  society,  it  is  all-important  to  gain  the 
right  stand-point.  If  we  assume,  to  start  with,  that 
Abraham,  who  lived  nearly  four  thousand  years  ago, 
was  located  on  some  modern  South  Carolina  negro 
plantation,  and  that  the  forms  of  language  and  ex- 
pression in  which  his  history  is  given  were  derived 
from  the  usages,  feelings,,  and  prejudices  of  modern 
pro-slavery  society,  we  make  a  great  mistake.  This 
at  once  puts  us  into  a  false  position  in  relation  to 
Patriarchal  servitude,  and  the  view  gained  therefrom " 
is  false. 
4 


34  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

Abraham  and  the  Patriarchs,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered, lived  only  a  few  generations  after  the  flood. 
They  lived  in  simple,  Patriarchal  times,  when  the 
earth  was  just  beginning  to  be  inhabited,  when  a 
nation  consisted  either  of  a  mere  family,  with  the 
father  at  the  head,  as  ruler,  or,  at  most,  of  a  small 
tribe  or  clan,  with  the  leading  patriarch  thereof  at 
the  head,  as  chief,  or  king.  Of  necessity,  this  must 
have  been  the  state  of  things  for  several  generations 
after  the  flood ;  and  for  a  long  time  after,  there  must 
have  been  a  strong  tendency  to  this  Patriarchal  form 
of  government  and  of  society.  Now  this  was  a  state 
of  society  and  a  form  of  government  somewhere  be- 
tween the  simple,  single  family  model  and  a  king- 
dom. Kingdoms,  in  the  enlarged  modern  sense,  had 
not  yet  appeared.  The  Patriarch,  or  chief,  was  not 
a  king  after  the  fashion  of  modern  kings,  but  was 
rather  the  ruling  head  of  a  compound  family. 

The  first  generation  after  the  flood  consisted  of 
Japheth,  Shem,  and  Ham,  and  their  wives :  three 
families.  The  second  consisted  of  the  children  of 
these  three  great  sires  of  the  post-diluvian  world, 
and  a  corresponding  number  of  families.  As  suc- 
ceeding generations  followed,  families  were  multi- 
plied. In  the  tenth  after  the  flood,  Abraham  lived. 
Now,  it  is  very  manifest,  that  in  this  early  period  of 
the  settlement  of  the  earth,  in  this  Patriarchal  age, 
people  must  have  dwelt  apart,  as  separate  and  inde- 
pendent families,  or  they  must  have  associated  them- 
selves together,  either  in  one  single  community,  or 
in  several  smaller  communities,  according  to  relation- 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.  35 

\ 

ships,  tastes,  or  other  circumstances.  But  it  is  very 
easy  to  see  that  human  beings,  in  any  age  of  the 
world,  would  not  be  very  likely  to  dwell  "alone," 
either  as  single  individuals,  or  as  isolated  families. 
They  would  naturally  seek  association  together.  The 
power  of  the  social  principle  alone,  would  be  suf- 
ficient to  draw  them  together,  either  in  one  general 
community,  or  into  smaller  compound  households  or 
tribal  communities.  So,  too,  from  considerations  of 
mutual  convenience  in  getting  a  living,  as  herdsmen, 
hunters,  and  tillers  of  the  ground,  and  for  purposes 
of  mutual  defense  against  wild  beasts,  and  against 
other  clans,  or  individuals,  would  they  be  brought 
together  in  the  same  way.  All  the  history  that  has 
come  down  to  us  of  those  early  times  confirms  these 
statements. 

It  is  further  manifest,  that  leading  minds  would 
be  very  likely  to  establish  households  of  their  own, 
and  gather  about  them  other  families  and  individ- 
uals of  less  mental  and  physical  power,  and  so  become 
heads,  chiefs,  or  patriarchs  of  the  tribes,  or  little 
kingdoms,  thus  constituted.  Hence  the  multiplica- 
tion of  tribes  and  chiefs  in  Patriarchal  times.  And 
hence  each  compound,  patriarchal  household  would 
be  made  up  of  the  Patriarch's  own  family  proper, 
and  of  other  single  families,  and  individuals,  male  or 
female,  associated  with  him. 

In  all  cases  the  Patriarch,  or  chief,  was  the  ac- 
knowledged leader  and  ruler.  In  him,  for  the  most 
part,  was  vested  the  supreme  governmental  authority, 
as  law-giver,  judge,  and  general.  Of  the  whole  com- 


36  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   HE-EXAMINED. 


pound  household  he  was  principal  master.  All  the 
members  thereof  acknowledged  his  authority  as  head- 
man, and  held  themselves  ready  to  follow  him,  and 
perform  any  service  which  he  should  require.  He 
was  lord  and  master  of  the  whole  household,  and 
all  its  members  accounted  themselves  his  servants. 
Nevertheless,  this  apparently  absolute  authority 
would  be  strongly  restrained  and  much  controlled 
by  the  Patriarch's  own  sense  of  justice,  and  by  the 
will  and  wishes  of  the  members  of  his  tribe.  Of 
course,  before  inferiority  of  races  was  either  known  or 
possible  in  the  world,  such  association  of  families  and 
individuals  would  be  entirely  voluntary,  and  on  the 
principle  of  fundamental  equality.  On  the  ground 
of  governmental  necessity,  the  Patriarch  was  head- 
man of  the  whole  household,  but  head-man  by  the 
free  consent  of  the  individual  members  thereof.  In 
the  nature  of  the  case,  without  such  consent,  he  would 
be  utterly  powerless.  He  was  head-man  over  a  com- 
munity of  freemen,  and  all  his  power  lay  in  their 
voluntary  devotion  to  him  and  the  household.  It 
would  seem  that  chattel  slavery,  in  such  circum- 
stances, would  be  an  absolute  impossibility.  Says  an 
eminent  Southern  senator :  "  Slavery  can  not  exist  a 
day  or  an  hour,  in  any  Territory  or  State,  unless  it 
has  affirmative  laws  sustaining  and  supporting  it, 
furnishing  police  regulations  and  remedies,"  any 
more  "  than  a  new-born  infant  could  survive  under 
the  heat  of  the  sun,  on  a  barren  rock,  without  pro- 
tection." Who  can  not  see  that  such  supports  of 
law  and  police  force  would  bo  impossible  in  the  little 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.  37 

independent  Patriarchal  tribes  or  households  into 
which  the  race  were  gathered  in  the  Patriarchal 
ages  following  the  flood,  including  Abraham's  day  ? 
It  seems  to  us  that  the  very  constitution  of  society 
utterly  forbade  the  existence  of  chattel  slavery  in 
those  days.  A  correct  view  of  Patriarchal  society 
reveals  the  fact  that  chattel  slavery  was  impossible, 
and  that  the  servitude  of  those  days  was  simply  the 
servitude  of  honorable  citizenship  in  the  household. 

Elements  of  the  Patriarchal  Household. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Patriarchal  household 
was  thus  made  up  and  enlarged,  reveals  very  clearly 
the  different  elements,  or  sorts  of  persons,  of  which 
it  was  composed.  It  is  manifest  from  Scripture,  as 
well  as  from  other  ancient  history,  that  it  was  re- 
garded, in  Patriarchal  times,  as  a  matter  of  great 
importance  to  enlarge  and  strengthen  the  household, 
or  tribe,  as  much  as  possible.  Indeed,  in  those  days, 
when  land  and  many  other  things  which  constitute 
modern  property,  were  of  little  or  no  value,  a  man's 
possessions  were  estimated  mostly  by  the  extent  of 
his  household,  and  the  number  of  his  cattle  and 
sheep.  Hence  it  was  always  a  favorite  object  with 
the  Patriarch  to  gather  about  him  a  numerous  house- 
hold. A  large  citizenship  was  his  pride  and  delight. 
This  fact  frequently  crops  out  in  Scripture  and  other 
ancient  history. 

The  Patriarch  could  accomplish  this  in  several 
ways :  but  always  on  the  principle  of  freedom.  In 
the  circumstances  of  those  early  times,  it  would 

44S316 


38  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

plainly  be  impossible  for  him  to  make  up  and  enlarge 
his  household  on  the  basis  of  chattel  slavery.  In  the 
nature  of  the  case,  his  whole  power  lay  in  the  volun- 
tary devotion  of  the  members  of  his  household.  There 
was  no  police  force,  military  power,  or  governmental 
authority  whatever  back  of  them,  to  which  he  could 
appeal  or  resort  for  the  enforcement  of  his  commands. 
Foreign  aid,  from  beyond  the  circle  of  his  own  little 
community,  was  entirely  out  of  the  question.  Volun- 
tary loyalty  to  himself  and  the  household  was  the  sole 
basis  of  all  his  power.  In  such  a  state  of  things, 
chattel  slavery  was  manifestly  impossible.  As  things 
actually  were,  in  Patriarchal  times,  when  the  people 
were  few,  and  the  materials  for  the  formation  of  na- 
tions with  the  machinery  of  national  governments 
did  not  exist,  when  the  earth  all  lay  common  and 
open  to  every  man,  when  inferiority  of  races  and 
most  of  the  artificial  distinctions  of  modern  society 
were  unknown,  and  when  all  the  people  were  much 
on  a  level  as  to  intellectual,  moral,  and  social  culture, 
it  would  have  been  a  simple  impossibility  for  any 
Patriarch  or  chief  to  make  up  a  household,  to  enlarge 
and  strengthen  it,  or  to  keep  it  together  on  the  basis 
of  chattel  slavery.  Isolate  Southern  slave  planta- 
tions, cut  them  off  from  all  help  of  police  force  and 
other  governmental  support  from  without,  lay  out 
the  whole  country,  teeming  with  game  and  vegetable 
productions  for  the  support  of  human  life,  common 
and  open  to  every  man,  abolish  the  idea  of  inferiority 
of  races,  and  introduce  the  equality  of  ancient  Patri- 
archal days  between  slave  and  master,  as  to  education, 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  39 

moral  development,  social  culture,  general  intelli- 
gence, and  common  habits,  and  chattel  slavery  could 
not  exist  a  single  day. 

The  construction  and  enlargement  of  the  Patri- 
archal household,  therefore,  could  have  proceeded 
only  on  the  basis  of  free,  honorable,  and  voluntary 
citizenship.  On  this  basis  the  embryo  kingdom  of 
the  Patriarch  might  have  been  enlarged  in  several 
ways. 

1.  First,  obviously,  by  natural  increase:  embracing 
his  own  children,  grand-children,  etc.,  and  close  kin- 
dred. 

2.  By  mutual  agreement :  whereby  several  families 
became  associated  together,  subject  to  one  Patriarch 
or  chief.     It  would  always  be  an  advantage,  in  many 
ways,   for   inferior   families    to  join   superior   and 
stronger  households. 

3.  The  Patriarch  might  also  build  up  and  enlarge 
his  household  by  a  mutual  contract  or  bargain  for 
service  and  citizenship  in  the  household,  for  a  givec 
sum  of  money  paid  by  him.     This  bargain  might  be 
for  a  limited  or  an  unlimited  period  of  time.     The 
Patriarch  might  thus  "buy"  citizens  for  his  tribe  or 
embryo  kingdom  for  a  term  of  years,  for  life,  or  for- 
ever.    When  the  time  was  unlimited,  the  individuals 
thus  engaged  by  Patriarchal  purchase,  would  become 
united  to  the  household  as  their  nation  and  home, 
permanently:  much  as  modern  emigrants  leave  one 
nation  and  settle  in  another  permanently  for  them- 
selves and  their  children,  except  that  in  Patriarchal 
days  the  nation  was  only  a  large  household. 


40  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   HE-EXAMINED. 

4.  Another  source  of  enlargement  would  be  from 
children  born  within  the  range  of  the  general  house- 
hold. In  this  gathering  together  of  families  and 
individuals  to  make  up  the  Patriarchal  compound  or 
tribal  household,  single  families  remained  intact,  and 
single  family  relations  undisturbed.  Nevertheless, 
these  families,  as  parents  and  children,  belonged  to, 
and  made  part  and  parcel  of,  the  tribe.  Children 
born  in  any  part  of  the  tribe,  just  as  in  nations  at 
the  present  day,  belonged  to  the  tribe,  and  added  to 
its  strength. 

Patriarchal  society,  therefore,  would  contain  in  it 
the  following  fundamental  elements : 

1.  Children  proper,  and  near  kindred. 

2.  Individuals  and  families  associated  by  mutual 
negotiation. 

3.  Individuals  and  families  bought  with  money. 

4.  Children  born  in  any  department  of  the  general 
household. 

Guests,  strangers,  and  sojourners,  and  hired  serv- 
ants, being  transient  persons  in  relation  to  the  house- 
hold, are,  of  course,  omitted  in  this  enumeration  of 
fundamental  elements. 

If,  now,  we  turn  to  the  history  of  the  Hebrew 
Patriarchs,  as  given  us  in  the  Bible,  we  shall  find,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  that  these  identical  classes  of  per- 
sons are  alluded  to  as  belonging  to  Patriarchal  society, 
and  no  others.  These  Patriarchs  themselves  were 
manifestly  independent  chiefs  of  such  compound 
households  as  we  have  described.  They  evidently 
sought  to  build  up  and  strengthen  their  households 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  41 

in  the  several  ways  which  we  have  mentioned;  and 
hence,  they  had  in  their  households  servants  or  sub- 
jects corresponding  with  these  several  ways. 

Abraham,  for  example,  as  a  wise  and  courageous 
chief,  had,  in  his  household,  all  these  several  classes 
of  persons.  1.  He  had  his  own  family  proper. 
2.  Others  associated  with  him  by  mutual  agreement, 
as  Lot  and  his  household,  for  a  while.  3.  Persons 
who  had  been  engaged  by  special  contract  to  unite 
with  his  clan,  sometimes  characterized  as  "  bought 
with  money."  4.  And  additions  by  birth  within  the 
range  of  his  little  kingdom,  sometimes  called  "sons 
of  the  house,"  or  "  born  in  the  house."  These  differ- 
ent classes  of  free  persons  made  up  the  house  of 
Abraham,  the  infant  Hebrew  commonwealth.  They 
belonged  to  his  Patriarchal  jurisdiction,  and,  as  such, 
were  his  "possession."  As  subjects  thereof,  they 
were,  and  were  often  called,  "  servants."  In  no  case 
were  they  ever  called  slaves.  Indeed,  in  all  this  con- 
stitution of  the  Abrahamic  household,  there  is  no 
place  for  chattel  slavery.  Manifestly,  these  several 
classes  of  persons  were  all  free  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren attached  to  Abraham  and  his  household,  accord- 
ing to  the  usages  and  necessities  of  the  times.  Thus, 
the  "bought  with  money,"  the  "born  in  the  ^ouse," 
and  those  associated  by  mutual  agreement,  were  all 
free  fellow-citizens  of  a  Patriarchal  nation,  in  which 
no  trace  of  chattel  slavery  is  anywhere  to  be  found. 
Even  the  words  slave  and  slavery  were  unknown 
and  unheard  of  in  the  Abrahamic  language,  so  far 
removed  were  the  things  which  these  words  repre- 


42  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

sent,  from  the  great  Patriarch's  thoughts,  practices, 
and  kingdom. 

This  view  of  Patriarchal  society,  and  the  Patri- 
archal household,  is  fundamental  to  a  right  under- 
standing of  Patriarchal  servitude.  To  illustrate  this 
view,  and  confirm  its  correctness,  we  adduce  the  fol- 
lowing description  of  a  modern  chief,  and  his  tribal 
household,  from  Dr.  W.  M.  Thomson's  "The  Land 
and  the  Book.11 

"We  encamped  for  the  night  near  the  tent  of  the  Emeer 
Hussein  el  Fudle,  the  supreme  chief  of  all  the  Arabs  in  that 

part  of  the  Jaulan We  were  received  with  great 

respect ;  fresh  coffee  was  roasted,  and  a  sheep  brought  up, 
slaughtered,  and  quickly  cooked  before  our  tent,  and  the  ex- 
temporaneous feast  spread  for  us  in  presence  of  the  emeer. 
Though  he  did  not  literally  run  to  the  herd  and  bring  it  him- 
self, others  did,  at  his  bidding,  and  the  whole  affair  brought 
the  patriarch  Abraham  vividly  to  mind.  Like  our  emeer,  he 
dwelt  in  tents,  and  his  dependents  were  encamped  about 
him  with  their  flocks  and  herds.  There  were  not  more  than 
thirty  tents  at  this  encampment.  ....  They  [i.  e.  the 
people]  and  their  ancestors  have  belonged  to  his  family  for 
so  many  generations  that  all  trace  of  their  real  origin  is 
lost.  ....  They  are  the  property  of  the  emeer  in  a  re- 
stricted sense,  and  so  are  the  flocks  and  herds  which  they 
are  permitted  to  hold,  and  he  does  not  hesitate  to  take  what 
he  wajts,  nor  can  any  refuse  his  demands,  whatever  they 
may  be.  But  then  custom,  or  law,  or  both,  utterly  forbids 
him  to  sell  them.  I  inquired  into  all  these  matters  the  next 
day,  as  we  rode  through  the  country,  under  the  protection  and 
guidance  of  his  head-servant,  who  reminded  me  constantly 
of  'Eliezur  of  Damascus.'  In  answer  to  my  question,  he  ex- 
claimed, in  indignant  surprise,  'Sell  us!  istuyfar  allah — God 
forbid!1 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.          43 

"  They  are,  in  fact,  the  home-born  servants  of  the  very  an- 
cient house  of  el  Fudle,  and  like  the  318  in  Abraham's  family, 
they  are  his  warriors  in  time  of  need,  which,  in  one  way  or 
another,  happens  almost  daily.  They  seem  to  be  attached  to 
the  emeer,  or  rather,  perhaps,  to  his  family  name,  rank,  power, 
and  honor.  Their  own  honor,  safety,  and  influence  all  de- 
pend upon  him." 

In  speaking  further  of  the  "head-servant"  alluded 
to,  Mr.  Thomson  says  that  he  was  "almost  startled 
to  find  that  the  emeer  was  entirely  governed  by" 
him.  "He  [the  emeer]  does  nothing  of  himself; 
and  this  modern  Eliezer  not  only  disposes  of  his 
master's  goods,  but  manages  the  affairs  of  his  gov- 
ernment very  much  as  he  pleases.  All  the  Arabs 
of  the  Huleh  and  Jaulan  greatly  fear  and  court  this 
chief  servant." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SPECIAL  FACTS  AND  CONSIDERATIONS  CONFIRMATORY 
OF  THE  FOREGOINa  CONCLUSION  THAT  CHATTEL 
SLAVERY  HAD  NO  PLACE  IN  THE  PATRIARCHAL 
HOUSEHOLDS. 

1.  POSITIVE  evidence  of  its  existence  is  wholly 
wanting  in  the  words  and  phrases  used  to  designate 
and  describe  the  various  members  of  Patriarchal 
society.  If  chattel  slavery  had  existed  in  the  Patri- 
archal households,  we  should  be  sure  to  find  it,  and 


44  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

its  characteristic  facts,  designated  by  terms  so  def- 
inite as  to  identify  it  beyond  all  dispute.  But  this  is 
not  the  fact.  It  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  spe- 
cific words  for  slave  and  slavery  are  not  found  in 
ancient  Hebrew  literature.  It  is  presumable,  to  say 
the  least,  that  if  the  thing  itself  had  been  there,  the 
words  to  represent  it  would  have  been  there  too. 

It  is,  indeed,  true,  that  several  words  and  phrases 
appear  in  the  Patriarchal  history,  which  have  some- 
times been  supposed  to  point  to  the  existence  of 
chattel  slavery.  They  are  such  as  the  following : 
"servant"  and  "servants,"  with  the  corresponding 
verb  "serve,"  "men-servants"  and  "women-serv- 
ants," "bondman"  and  "bondwoman,"  "bond-serv- 
ant" and  "bondmaid,"  "maid-servant,"  "buy"  and 
"  bought  with  money,"  "  sell  "  and  "  sold." 

Now,  in  regard  to  all  these  terms,  it  may  be  re- 
marked, in  general,  that  Weld,  Barnes,  Cheever,  and 
others  have  abundantly  shown  that,  in  themselves, 
they  have  no  distinct  and  specific  reference  to  chat- 
tel slavery. 

(1.)  Their  investigations  have  fully  proved  that 
the  distinction  which  appears  in  our  English  transla- 
tion between  "servants"  and  "bondmen,"  or  "bond- 
servants," "  maid-servants,"  and  "  bondmaids,"  is 
entirely  a  gloss  of  the  translators.  No  such  distinc- 
tion appears  in  the  original  Hebrew.  In  it  the 
words  are  the  same,  and  are  used  in  reference  to  all 
kinds  .of  service  and  all  classes  of  persons,  including 
the  service  of  God  and  the  service  of  the  most  sacred 
friendships,  and  persons  of  the  highest  rank  and 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  45 

character,  as  Moses,  David,  Isaiah,  and  the  most 
distinguished  personages  of  Jewish  history.  There 
is  not  the  least  intimation,  in  all  the  Patriarchal  his- 
tory, that  these  words  ever  had  a  degraded  sense ; 
and  not  one  solitary  character  appears  on  the  arena 
of  ancient  Jewish  history,  who  seemed  to  regard  it 
as  dishonorable  to  apply  to  himself  these  identical 
terms. 

(2.)  The  Hebrew  words  for  "buy"  and  "sell," 
and  "  bought  with  money,"  also  had  a  similar  gen- 
eral meaning,  and  had  no  specific  reference  to  chat- 
tel slavery.  They  were  freely  applied  to  cases  where 
chattel  slavery  was  impossible.  "  Then  Joseph  said 
unto  the  people,  Behold  I  have  bought  you  this  day, 
and  your  land  for  Pharaoh." — Gen.  xlvii:  23.  "More- 
over Ruth,  the  Moabitess,  the  wife  of  Mahlon,  have 
I  purchased  to  be  my  wife." — Ruth  iv  :  10.  In  Pa- 
triarchal history,  the  procuring  of  a  wife  and  the 
procuring  of  a  servant,  are  described  in  the  same 
language.  Both  were  bought  with  money,  were  the 
purchase  of  silver,  the  one  to  be  a  wife,  the  other 
to  be  a  servant,  and  neither  to  be  a  chattel  slave. 

The  truth  is,  the  original  Hebrew  words  for  these 
English  terms  are  such,  in  their  usage,  as  are  per- 
fectly applicable  to  free  men  and  free  society:  and 
such  as  would  have  been  used  if  chattel  slavery  had 
never  been  heard  of.  Therefore  they  furnish  not  one 
particle  of  positive  evidence  of  the  existence  of  chat- 
tel slavery  in  the  Patriarchal  households.  Indeed, 
if  it  had  existed  there,  there  would  have  been  an- 
other set  of  words  and  phrases  by  which  to  designate 


46  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED/ 

it  and  its  concomitants,  and  separate  it  from  the  free 
servitude  which  is  described  under  the  terms  alluded 
to  above.  So  that  in  the  absence  of  specific  terms 
for  slavery  and  its  necessary  incidents,  the  terms 
actually  employed  indicate  that  it  had  no  place  in 
Patriarchal  society.  They  are  precisely  such  terms, 
every  one  of  them,  as  free  Patriarchal  society  de- 
manded, and  not  the  terms  which  slaveholding  Pa- 
triarchal society  would  have  demanded.  Later  in 
the  history  of  the  world,  in  other  nations,  where 
chattel  slavery  was  superadded  to  free  servitude,  we 
find  specific  terms  to  designate  it  and  its  concomi- 
tants. In  the  Hebrew  language  this  additional  set 
of  terms  is  wholly  wanting. 

2.  But  there  is  positive  evidence  in  the  usage  of 
these  terms  that  the  "buying"  of  servants  "with 
money,"  as  referred  to  in  Patriarchal  history,  did 
not  and  could  not  mean  chattel  slavery.  The  writer 
of  that  history,  in  another  Book,  has  given  us,  inci- 
dentally, a  clue  to  the  meaning  of  this  phraseology 
as  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  which  establishes  its 
sense  beyond  all  question. 

Turn,  if  you  please,  to  Lev.  xxv :  47-52,  and  note 
the  words  and  phrases  there  used,  and  their  manifest 
meaning.  The  case  is  that  of  the  poor  Jew  who 
should  "sell  himself"  to  a  " stranger  or  sojourner." 
He  might  be  redeemed  by  any  of  his  kindred,  or  any 
of  his  brethren,  or  he  might  "redeem  himself"  "if 
able"  "And  he  shall  reckon  with  him  that  bought 
him  from  the  year  that  he  was  sold  to  him  unto  the 
year  of  Jubilee;  and  the  price  of  his  sale  shall  be 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  47 

according  unto  the  number  of  years,  according  to 
the  time  of  a  hired  servant  shall  it  be  with  him." — V. 
50.  "  If  there  be  yet  many  years  behind,  according 
unto  them  he  shall  give  again  the  price  of  his  re- 
demption out  of  the  money  that  he  was  bought  for." 
— V.  51.  Here  the  servant  was  "  bought  with  money ;" 
but  he  also  sold  himself:  money  was  paid  for  him ; 
but  it  was  paid  to  himself.  Most  manifestly  here  is 
nothing  in  all  this  "buying"  of  the  servant  "with 
money,"  and  in  his  being  "sold,"  but  simply  an 
agreement  between  one  free  man  and  another  free 
man,  by  which  the  one  agrees  to  perform  service  for 
the  other,  and  belong  to  his  household  for  satisfac- 
tory compensation.  This  is  precisely  what  these 
terms  mean,  and  all  they  mean,  when  used  in  connec- 
tion with  Abrahamic  and  Patriarchal  history. 

In  modern  times,  the  buying  of  negroes  with 
money,  means  chattel  slavery.  But  this,  by  no 
means  proves  that  the  buying  of  servants  with 
money  meant  chattel  slavery  in  Patriarchal  times, 
where  the  words  slavery  and  slave  were  never  heard 
of.  Indeed,  the  "  buying  "  of  servants  "  with  money," 
can  mean  chattel  slavery  only  where  the  existence  of 
chattel  slavery  has  originated  and  established  this 
specific  usage  of  such  language.  Everywhere  else, 
such  language  refers  only  to  bargain  between  free- 
men. In  free  countries,  and  among  free  people,  such 
language  refers  only  to  engagement  for  services  ac- 
cording to  usages  of  the  times.  The  writer  noticed, 
not  long  since,  among  the  news  items  in  a  secular 
newspaper  printed  in  Northern  Ohio,  the  following : 


48  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

"A  vagrant  in  Cincinnati  sold  her  three-days  old 
babe  for  $3."  In  Ohio,  such  language  has  not  the 
remotest  imaginable  allusion  to  chattel  slavery :  in 
New  Orleans,  it  would  probably  refer  to  nothing  else. 

So,  in  Patriarchal  times,  this  sort  of  phraseology 
referred  simply  to  the  arrangement  with  the  servant 
himself,  to  secure  his  alliance  to  the  household,  ac- 
cording to  prevailing  usages.  Chiefs,  and  heads  of 
families,  and  clans,  could  greatly  increase  their  house- 
holds, and  so  their  strength  and  influence,  by  thus 
enlisting,  for  money  paid  to  them,  and  not  to  a 
third  party,  such  individuals  and  families  as  they 
could  induce  to  join  them.  This  was  the  Abrahamic 
and  Patriarchal  "buying  with  money."  The  indi- 
viduals thus  bought  were  free  men,  women,  and 
children,  who  made  their  own  bargain  for  selling 
themselves,  and  did  service  according  to  the  usages 
of  the  times. 

3.  But  this  baseless  assumption,  that  Abraham 
and  the  Patriarchs  bought  chattel  slaves,  by  no 
means  warrants  the  conclusion  that  they  ever  held 
them  as  such.  If  we  admit  that  the  whole  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  "trained  servants"  whom 
Abraham  "armed"  and  led  forth  to  the  "slaughter 
of  Chedorlaomer,  and  of  the  kings  that  were  with 
him,"  were  actually  bought  of  somebody  after  the 
manner  of  modern  slave-buying,  that  does  not  prove 
at  all  that  Abraham  ever  thought  of  making  chattel 
slaves  of  them  himself,  or  ever  held  them  as  such  for 
a  single  hour. 

Suppose  Abraham  did  buy  chattel  slaves :  did  he 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  49 

ever  hold  them  as  such  himself?  The  former  sup- 
position throws  no  light  upon  the  latter  question. 
To  buy  a  chattel  slave  out  of  the  hands  of  a  slave- 
holder, does  not  constitute  the  buyer  a  slaveholder, 
by  any  means.  He  may  be  the  most  ultra  abolition- 
ist that  ever  breathed,  for  all  that.  If  the  history 
had  anywhere  said  that  Abraham  did  sell,  as  mer- 
chandise, sundry  persons,  and  did  actually  take  money 
for  them  of  some  third  party,  and  did  deliver  said 
persons  over  to  said  third  party  as  property,  this 
would  throw  great  light  upon  the  question  whether 
he  ever  held  chattel  slaves.  But  this  latter  sort  of 
historical  evidence  happens  to  be  totally  wanting. 

4.  Chattel  slavery  is  a  degradation  and  an  op- 
pression so  unwelcome  and  distressful  to  human  be- 
ings, that  they  never  did,  and  never  will  endure  it, 
if  they  can  escape  from  it.  In  Patriarchal  times,  all 
any  slave  had  to  do  to  escape  and  be  free,  was  to 
use  his  legs  and  walk  off  in  full  and  undisputed  pos- 
session of  that  charter  of  freedom  which  God  Al- 
mighty writes  upon  every  human  heart  while  it  is 
forming  in  the  maternal  womb.  It  was  a  simple 
impossibility  for  the  Patriarchs  to  hold  chattel  slaves, 
for  the  very  good  reason  that  a  single  night  would 
emancipate  the  whole  of  them  wholly  beyond  the 
power  of  capture.  Nay,  they  could  all  walk  straight 
off  at  their  leisure  in  broad  mid-day  sunshine,  in 
spite  of  all  that  the  Patriarchs  could  do  to  hinder  it. 
The  whole  land  lay  before  them,  full  of  game  and 
fruits,  to  sustain  life  :  and  freedom  was  just  as  cheap 
to  every  one  of  all  the  servants  of  the  Patriarchs,  aa 
5 


50  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

slavery.  It  is  the  sheerest  nonsense  to  suppose,  that, 
as  they  journeyed  from  one  part  of  the  country  to 
another,  they  had  a  long  train  of  chattel  slaves  at 
their  heels,  like  some  hideous  Legree  of  our  Southern 
states. 

It  is  said  of  Abraham,  for  example,  that,  at  one 
time,  for  a  certain  military  expedition,  he  "  armed 
his  servants  born  in  his  own  house,  three  hundred 
and  eighteen."  If  he  could  muster  so  many  from 
among  his  servants  that  were  fit  to  bear  arms,  and 
to  be  led  forth  on  such  an  errand,  his  whole  house- 
hold must  have  consisted  of  some  thousands.  His 
own  household  was  a  sort  of  traveling  kingdom :  it 
existed  by  itself,  separate  from  all  other  tribes  and 
households;  there  was  no  governmental  authority, 
military  force,  civil  police,  or  other  resource  to 
which  he  could  apply  for  assistance,  outside  of  the 
circle  of  his  own  tents.  How,  then,  could  he  hold  in 
the  hated  subjection  of  chattel  slavery  this  large 
number  of  people?  A  late  eloquent  writer  has  very 
shrewdly  remarked  that  "  the  most  natural  supposi- 
tion is,  that  the  Patriarch  and  his  wife  '  took  turns ' 
in  surrounding  them !  "  * 

5.  The  necessary  concomitants  of  chattel  slavery 
do  not  appear  in  the  Patriarchal  history.  A  careful 
examination  of  that  history  does  not  reveal  one  soli- 
tary characteristic  of  slaveholding  society  in  the 
Patriarchal  households. 

(1.)  As  already  noticed,  the  terms  applied  to  serv- 
ants have  no  degraded  sense.  These  terms  are  so 


PATRIARCHAL    SERVITUDE.  51 

used  as  to  preclude  all  idea  of  degradation.  But  the 
idea  of  great  degradation  always  goes  along  with 
chattel  slavery ;  with  the  word  slave  and  the  condi- 
tion of  a  slave.  The  absence  of  this  in  the  Patri- 
archal history,  indicates  that  slavery  was  not  in  the 
Patriarchal  families. 

(2.)  The  Patriarchal  history  does  not  reveal  a 
chattel  slave  class  of  people  as  distinct  and  separate 
from  common  servants.  These  two  separate  classes 
of  people,  namely,  chattel  slaves  and  common  serv- 
ants, can  not  be  distinguished  anywhere  in  this 
history.  Only  one  class  appears.  That  class  has 
all  the  characteristics  of  common  or  non-chattel 
servants.  Nowhere  does  that  class  present  the  pe- 
culiar characteristics  of  chattel  slaves.  But  where- 
ever  chattel  slavery  exists,  slaves  always  appear  as 
a  class  separate  and  distinct  from  common  or  free 
servants. 

(3.)  The  marketing  of  servants  nowhere  appears 
in  the  Patriarchal  households.  There  is  not  in  all 
this  history  the  obscurest  hint  that  the  Patriarchs 
ever  sold  any  of  their  servants.  There  is  no  inti- 
mation that  they  ever  regarded  them  as  objects  of 
sale:  that  the  thought  of  making  merchandise  of 
them  ever  once  entered  their  minds.  But  who  does 
not  know  that  the  selling  of  slaves  always  goes  along 
with  chattel  slavery? 

(4.)  Nor,  again,  does  the  guarding  of  servants  as 
chattel  slaves  ever  come  to  light  in  this  history. 
We  never  hear  a  word  about  the  slave-hunt,  either 
with  or  without  blood-hounds,  for  the  capture  of  the 


52  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

fugitive.  We  hear  not  one  syllable  touching  Patri- 
archal valor  in  reclaiming  the  guilty  runaway :  nor 
is  the  snap  of  the  slaveholder's  whip,  in  inflicting 
the  needed  torture  upon  the  quivering  flesh,  ever 
heard.  This  whole  Patriarchal  history  is  as  barren 
of  all  such  slaveholding  concomitants  as  the  history 
of  a  Connecticut  Dorcas  Society  would  be.  The  Pa- 
triarchs lost,  hunted,  and  sold  cattle,  and  sheep,  and 
asses,  but  there  is  no  hint  that  they  ever  lost  any 
slaves,  or  hunted  any,  or  sold  any.  If  they  never 
had  any,  this  is  sufficiently  accounted  for. 

(5.)  The  word  owner  is  never  applied  to  masters 
in  relation  to  servants.  They  were  called  masters 
of  the  servants  under  them,  but  never  owners.  The 
servants  are  represented  in  the  Patriarchal  history 
as  having  been  the  possession  of  the  master,  just  as  a 
man's  wife  and  children  are  his  own,  his  possession : 
but  in  no  instance  are  they  represented  as  having 
been  the  possession  of  the  master  as  merchandise. 

(6.)  The  price  of  a  man  is  never  the  subject  of 
consideration,  while  the  wages  are.  Chattel  slavery 
sets  a  price  upon  every  slave,  and  he  is  known  and 
estimated  by  his  price.  In  free  society,  the  price 
of  a  man  is  unknown.  Free  servants  are  spoken  of 
in  reference  to  their  wages,  and  never  in  reference 
to  the  price  of  the  man  himself. 

(7.)  Neither  slave-rebellions,  nor  the  fear  of  them, 
ever  appear  in  the  Patriarchal  history.  These,  and 
the  fear  of  them,  always  go  along  with  chattel  slav- 
ery. They  mark  its  entire  past  history.  In  the 
nature  of  things,  they  must  ever  belong  to  it. 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  53 

6.  The  characteristics  of  free  society  broadly  mark 
this  whole  history. 

(1.)  Servants,  all  the  servants  there  were,  consti- 
tuted an  honorable  class.  No  man  ever  appears  to 
have  been  dishonored  by  either  being  or  being  called 
a  servant. 

(2.)  Servants  were  intrusted  with  important  er- 
rands and  responsibilities,  just  as  if  they  were  free 
men,  and  the  official  agents  of  their  masters,  and  in 
a  manner  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  condition  of 
chattel  slaves.  It  is  said  of  the  "  eldest  servant "  of 
Abraham's  house,  that  he  "  ruled  over  all  that  he 
had."  Of  this  servant  Abraham  took  an  oath,  de- 
scribed in  the  following  remarkable  language  :  "  Put, 
I  pray  thee,  thy  hand  under  my  thigh :  and  I  will 
make  thee  swear  by  the  Lord,  the  God  of  heaven, 
and  the  God  of  the  earth,  that  thou  shalt  not  take  a 
wife  unto  my  son  of  the  daughters  of  the  Canaanites 
among  whom  I  dwell.  But  thou  shalt  go  unto  my 
country,  and  to  my  kindred,  and  take  a  wife  unto 
my  son  Isaac." — Gen.  xxiv :  2-4.  Who  ever  heard 
of  a  chattel  slave  intrusted  with  such  a  responsibility 
as  this  in  regard  to  his  master's  son  ? 

Then  the  Sacred  Record  proceeds  to  tell  us  that 
this  servant  fitted  himself  out  for  the  fulfillment  of 
this  sacred  promise,  with  a  retinue  of  "men,"  and 
"ten  camels,"  and  a  large  burden  of  golden  "brace- 
lets "  and  "ear-rings,"  and  "jewels  of  silver  and  jew- 
els of  gold  and  raiment,"  and  "precious  things." 
His  journey  led  him  across  the  country,  four  hun- 
dred miles  or  more,  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  his 


54  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   HE-EXAMINED. 

master.  All  this  was  wholly  inconsistent  with  the 
existence  and  necessities  of  chattel  slavery.  Other 
similar  events  are  recorded  in  the  Patriarchal  history. 

(3.)  Servants  and  masters  associated  together  in 
a  manner  consistent  only  with  a  state  of  freedom  and 
manhood  equality.  Abraham,  in  the  transaction  al- 
luded to  above,  took  an  oath  of  his  servant,  just  as 
if  he  was  his  equal.  "  Swear,  I  pray  thee."  And 
just  as  if  a  man's  full  responsibilities  belonged  to  him. 
Servants  and  masters  engaged  in  the  same  employ- 
ments together,  and  dwelt  together  evidently  as  equal 
fellow-citizens,  occupying  the  different  relations  of 
servant  and  master. 

(4.)  Servants  were  freely  armed  and  trained  for 
war;  armed,  trained,  and  trusted  in  war,  just  like 
loyal  citizens,  and  in  circumstances  wholly  incon- 
sistent with  a  state  of  slavery.  See  the  account  of 
Abraham's  slaughter  of  Chedorlaomer,  and  the  kings 
that  were  with  him.  Such  arming  and  training  of 
servants  for  war,  in  the  circumstances,  indicates  a 
state  of  freedom. 

(5.)  Servants  are  the  only  class  of  citizens,  high 
or  low,  alluded  to  in  the  Patriarchal  history,  as  be- 
longing to  the  Patriarchal  household.  The  whole 
membership,  except  children,  were  called  servants. 
Abraham,  as  well  as  Isaac,  in  building  up  his  house- 
hold, gathered  about  him  many  hundreds,  and  prob- 
ably thousands  of  people,  and  all  these  are  called 
servants.  So  of  other  Patriarchies.  The  highest, 
lowest,  and  only  class  of  citizens  known  in  the  Patri- 
archal history,  except  children  of  the  chief,  are  called 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  55 

servants.  If  all  these  were  chattel  slaves,  then  an- 
cient society  consisted  of  a  few  score  of  chiefs,  and 
all  the  rest  of  the  people  were  chattel  slaves.  But 
this  supposition  is  absurd  in  the  extreme.  The  serv- 
ants, therefore,  must  have  been  the  free  fellow-citi- 
zens of  the  Patriarchal  kingdom. 

(6.)  Hence,  the  fact  which  distinctly  crops  out  in 
Patriarchal  history,  that  the  servant  sometimes  be- 
came the  master's  heir.  "And  Abram  said,  Behold, 
to  me  thou  hast  given  no  seed :  and,  lo,  one  born  in 
my  house  is  mine  heir."  If  the  servants  constituted 
the  citizenship  of  the  household,  and  if  the  masters 
were  the  ruling  chiefs  of  the  house,  as  a  little  king- 
dom, this  was  natural  and  necessary  even,  when  the 
chief  had  no  children  to  whom  he  could  bequeath 
his  authority  and  place.  To  build  up  the  house,  and 
transmit  it,  was  a  favorite  object  with  the  ancients, 
put  into  their  minds,  nc-  doubt,  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Almighty.  Of  necessity  the  household  must  have  a 
head ;  a  head  as  ruler  and  guide.  It  could  not  exist 
without  such  master.  Heirship,  therefore,  fell,  of 
course,  to  some  of  the  servants,  in  case  the  master 
died  childless,  inasmuch  as  servants  constituted  the 
membership  of  the  household,  and  were  the  only 
class  of  people  in  it.  In  default  of  a  legitimate  heir 
in  the  private  family  of  the  chief,  some  member  of 
the  general  household  must  become  heir  to  the  head- 
ship, or  the  house  would  be  dissolved  and  scattered. 

(7.)  Hence,  too,  the  fact  that  servants  acquired, 
held,  and  disposed  of  property  as  their  own,  just  as 
if  they  had  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  free  men, 


56  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

and  in  a  manner  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  ex- 
istence and  necessities  of  chattel  slavery.  When 
Jacob  was  the  servant  of  Laban,  he  outstripped  his 
master  in  the  acquisition  of  property. 

(8.)  The  children  of  female  servants  were  acknowl- 
edged and  treated  as  men  and  heirs.  This  chattel 
slavery  forbids.  But  there  is  no  hint  in  the  Patri- 
archal history  that  the  children  of  female  servants 
suffered  any  degradation  on  that  account.  The  chil- 
dren of  the  maid-servants  of  Leah  and  Rachel  were 
reckoned  among  the  twelve  Patriarchs,  precisely  in 
the  same  manner  as  were  the  children  of  their  mis- 
tresses. Whoever  should  say  that  Ishmael,  the  son 
of  Hagar,  Sarah's  handmaid,  was  a  chattel  slave, 
would  have  a  serious  account  to  settle  with  him,  if 
he  were  atill  alive. 

Other  decisive  marks  of  freedom,  as  opposed  to 
chattel  slavery,  might  be  giv.en,  but  we  forbear.  The 
servitude  of  the  Patriarchal  history  was  either  free, 
non-chattel  servitude,  more  or  less  restricted,  or  it 
was  chattel-slave  servitude.  If  it  was  free  servitude, 
the  regulations  pertaining  to  it,  and  the  facts  evolved 
in  the  history  of  it,  would  correspond  thereto :  if  it 
was  slave  servitude,  the  characteristics  of  slave  servi- 
tude would  appear  in  the  regulations  in  regard  to  it, 
and  in  the  history  of  it.  We  have  seen  that  the 
characteristics  of  chattel  slavery  are  wholly  wanting, 
and  that  the  marks  of  free  society  everywhere 
abound. 

7.  Slaveholding  is  an  element  of  meanness  in  char- 
acter which  ought  not  to  be  charged  upon  the  Patri- 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  57 

archs  unnecessarily.  It  is  a  mean  thing  in  any  man 
to  regard,  or  use,  or  treat  his  fellow  as  property. 

It  is  immeasurably  more  honorable  to  the  Patri- 
archs to  suppose  that  they  gathered  about  them- 
selves an  embryo  nation  of  freemen,  and  acknowl- 
edged fellow  citizens,  than  it  is  to  charge  them  with 
the  despotism  and  injustice  of  reducing  the  great 
majority  of  the  membership  of  their  households  to 
the  degraded  condition  of  chattel  slaves.  It  was 
noble  in  them  to  do  the  former :  it  would  have  been 
most  ignoble  in  them  if  they  had  been  guilty  of  the 
latter. 

Commentators  and  expounders  of  Patriarchal  his- 
tory and  character  should  look  well  to  their  proofs, 
before  they  set  it  down  as  irrefragable  orthodoxy, 
that  chattel  slaves  made  up  the  principal  part  of  the 
Patriarchal  households.  Such  a  stigma  upon  their 
character  ought  not  to  be  admitted  without  the  clear- 
est evidence:  such  evidence  as  the  Sacred  History 
nowhere  gives  us. 

8.  The  divine  testimony  in  regard  to  Abraham 
and  his  character  utterly  forbids  the  supposition  that 
he  himself  was  a  slaveholder,  and  his  servants  slaves. 
God  says  of  him:  "For  I  know  him,  that  he  will 
command  his  children,  and  his  household  after  him, 
and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do 
justice  and  judgment." — Gen.  xviii:  19.  How  per- 
fectly inconsistent  this  testimony  is  with  the  notion 
that  Abraham  was  the  original  founder  of  chattel 
slavery,  the  most  unjust  of  all  forms  of  trespass 
upon  manhood  rights,  and  himself  the  actual  leader 


58  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

and  owner  of  an  enormous  gang  of  slaves!  Com- 
mentators who  suppose  this  of  Abraham,  and  gravely 
accuse  him  of  this  great  wickedness,  surely  make  a 
most  grievous  mistake.  God  knew  Abraham  better 
than  this,  and  has  sent  down  to  us  a  better  record  of 
him.  "And  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord  to 
do  justice  and  judgment." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

PARTICULAR  EXAMINATION  OF  VARIOUS  PASSAGES  OF 
SCRIPTURE  WHICH  REFER  TO  PATRIARCHAL  SERV- 
ITUDE. 

SEC.  1. — Noah's  Curse. 

IN  this  investigation  we  shall  not  go  back  beyond 
the  great  flood.  It  would  be  useless  to  attempt  to 
do  this.  Howbeit  it  is  a  great  satisfaction  to  us  who 
believe  in  the  universal  brotherhood  of  the  race,  to 
know  that  in  the  first  family  in  the  beautiful  and 
holy  Garden  of  Eden,  there  were  no  slaves.  God 
gave  Adam  a  wife  to  be  his  companion;  but  he 
neither  gave  to  him,  nor  to  Eve  his  wife,  any  slaves. 
There  were  no  slaves  in  Eden.  There  were  no  slaves 
in  the  first  family  out  of  Eden. 

Passing  by  the  generations  before  the  flood,  wo 
begin,  then,  with  the  family  of  Noah,  after  the  flood. 
And  here,  too,  we  have  the  comfort  of  knowing  that 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  59 

there  were  no  slaves  in  the  Noachian  household,  un- 
less, indeed,  they  were  overlooked  among  the  cattle 
and  four-footed  beasts  and  creeping  things  that  were 
crowded  into  the  Ark.  Some  of  the  commentators, 
strangely  enough,  make  Abraham,  "the  father  of 
the  faithful,"  the  actual  father  and  founder  of  chat- 
tel slavery  in  this  world :  but  the  honor  of  starting 
the  original  idea  has  been  quite  extensively  accorded 
to  Noah,  in  the  "curse"  which  it  has  been  supposed 
he  pronounced  against  Canaan.  Whether  the  great 
Ark-builder  originated  the  idea  himself,  or  whether 
he  received  it  as  one  of  the  theological  achievements 
of  the  other  side  of  the  flood,  or  whether  it  was 
given  to  him  by  divine  inspiration,  does  not  very 
clearly  appear.  We  would  respectfully  suggest  this 
as  an  important  subject  of  inquiry  for  the  theological 
antiquarian.  If  Noah  brought  this  idea  over  the 
flood  with  him,  it  is  very  possible  that  it  may  yet 
be  traced  back  to  the  very  gates  of  the  Garden :  or 
at  least  to  a  period  coeval  with  the  killing  of  Abel. 
It  would  certainly  be  interesting  to  find  out  that 
murder  and  slavery  were  veritable  twin-children  of 
depravity,  actually  born  at  the  same  birth. 

But  as  theological  history  now  runs,  chattel  slavery 
was  conceived  by  Noah  about  the  time  of  his  ugly 
experiment  with  the  wine  of  the  vineyard  which  he 
planted,  and  brought  into  the  world  by  Abraham, 
not  far  from  the  time  when  the  rite  of  circumcision 
was  instituted.*  According  to  this  testimony,  there- 
fore, its  pedigree  is  of  the  highest  order. 

*  See  Cottage  Bible  :  note,  Gen.  xvii :  12. 


60  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

But  seriously,  the  manner  in  which  the  Patriarchal 
prophecy  of  Noah  concerning  his  sons  has  been  in- 
terpreted by  certain  expounders  of  Sacred  Writ,  is 
a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  facility  with  which 
common  sense  may  be  renounced  when  Bible  matters 
and  religious  things  are  the  subjects  of  consideration. 
It  appears,  from  Bible  history,  that  it  was  not  uncom- 
mon, in  Patriarchal  times,  for  the  aged  Patriarch  to 
pronounce  a  prophetic,  farewell  benediction  upon  his 
children.*  This  benediction  was  prophetic,  and,  when 
inspired,  it  corresponded  with  the  facts  of  subsequent 
history.  It  changed  nothing :  it  simply  spoke,  by 
prophetic  foresight,  of  after  facts  in  the  history  of 
the  persons  concerned.  It,  of  itself,  really  blessed 
nobody,  and  it  cursed  nobody.  When,  for  example, 
Jacob,  thus,  in  his  dying  and  farewell  benediction 
upon  his  sons,  prophesied  in  regard  to  their  subse- 
quent history,  he  did  not  make  one  hair  white  or 
black  as  to  that  history.  His  prophetic  benediction 
changed  nothing :  established  nothing  :  decreed  noth- 
ing. It  simply  revealed  the  future,  as  the  spirit  of 
prophecy  made  that  future  known  to  him.  It  con- 
tained in  it  both  good  and  evil,  and,  in  that  sense,  both 
blessing  and  curse.  We  call  it  a  benediction  for  the 
want  of  a  better  term,  and  because  it  contained  in  it 
much  more  blessing  than  curse.  The  old  Latin  word 
dictio,  would,  perhaps,  be  a  better  word  to  use  in 
such  cases ;  but  usage  compels  us  to  retain  the  word 
benediction,  though  it  properly  means  only  blessing. 

The  history  of  Noah's  life,  as  given  in  the  book  of 
Genesis,  after  the  account  of  the  flood  is  closed  up 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  61 

at  the  17th  verse  of  the  ninth  chapter,  is  very  brief. 
It  is  all  contained  in  the  twelve  remaining  verses  of 
the  chapter.  These  verses  contain  only  three  or  four 
incidents  of  Noah's  life  after  the  flood,  very  briefly 
described,  without  any  reference,  apparently,  to  the 
time  when  they  took  place,  except  his  death,  which  is 
distinctly  stated  to  have  occurred  three  hundred  and 
fifty  years  after  the  flood.  These  few  incidents  took 
place  sometime  during  these  three  hundred  and  fifty 
years :  exactly  at  what  time  the  Kecord  does  not  state. 
It  is  altogether  probable  that  Noah  planted  his 
vineyard,  and  became  drunken  on  the  wine  thereof, 
not  very  long  after  the  flood.  His  unfortunate  ex- 
posure, as  the  result  of  his  drinking,  and  its  discovery 
by  his  children,  must  have  occurred  in  immediate  con- 
nection with  his  drunkenness.  From  the  Record  it 
appears  that  Ham,  his  youngest  son,  happened  to  see 
the  nakedness  of  his  father  first :  of  necessity,  as  the 
first  to  notice  it,  he  must  have  seen  it.  No  one  of 
the  sons  could  have  had  any  knowledge  of  it  at  all, 
except  as  one  of  them  became  an  actual  eye-witness 
of  it.  It  so  happened  that  Ham,  wittingly  or  unwit- 
tingly, was  the  first  to  notice  the  nakedness  of  his 
father.  He  told  his  brothers.  They,  being  thus  in- 
formed of  the  matter,  had  no  need  to  witness  their 
father's  degradation,  and  so  they  "took  a  garment" 
"and  went  backward  and  covered  the  nakedness  of 
their  father."  Whether  Ham,  or  either  of  the  other 
sons,  was  at  all  to  blame  in  all  this,  doth  not  appear 
from  the  Sacred  Record.  The  presumption,  is  that 
none  of  the  children  were  to  blame.  Blame,  doubt- 


62  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

less,  attached  to  the  father.  He  awoke  from  his 
wine,  and  had  the  chagrin  to  know  that  his  younger 
son  had  been  an  eye-witness  of  his  degradation,  and 
that  all  his  sons  were  thus  made  acquainted  with  it. 

The  rest  of  Noah's  life  after  the  flood,  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  years,  is  passed  over  in  silence, 
except  his  farewell,  prophetic  benediction  upon  his 
sons.  This  is  recorded  in  the  25th,  26th,  and  27th 
verses  of  this  ninth  chapter.  It  is  not  said  when  this 
was  uttered:  but,  from  the  nature  of  the  utterance 
itself,  and  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  it  is 
altogether  probable,  nay,  morally  certain,  that  this 
prophecy  was  uttered  near  the  close  of  his  life.  It 
was  a  dying,  farewell  dictio  respecting  his  sons,  as  to 
their  after  history :  it  is  the  last  thing  said  of  the 
venerable  Patriarch,  next  to  the  account  of  his  death : 
near  the  close  of  his  life  was  the  most  suitable  time 
for  such  an  utterance.  We  protest  most  fully  against 
the  notion  that  such  a  solemn,  inspired  prophecy  as 
this,  was  uttered  by  Noah  just  as  he  was  coming  out 
of  a  drunken  fit !  What  witless  and  morbid  stupidity 
has  possessed  commentators  to  favor  such  an  absurd 
idea,  is  more  than  we  can  comprehend.  As  if  drunk- 
enness was  favorable  for  the  reception  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  for  the  gift  of  prophecy ! 

In  this  farewell  utterance  of  Noah  respecting  the 
future  of  his  sons,  not  one  word  is  said  of  Ham, 
either  good  or  evil,  except  that  which  is  spoken  of 
Canaan  his  son.  There  were  very  good  reasons  for 
referring  especially  to  Canaan.  The  most  prominent 
thing  in  regard  to  Ham,  before  the  mind  of  the  dy- 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  63 

ing  Patriarch,  was  the  miserable  future  of  his  son 
Canaan.  This  was  especially  and  strongly  presented 
before  his  mind,  by  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  undoubt- 
edly because  the  Canaanites  would  be  so  closely  con- 
nected with  subsequent  manifestations  of  Jehovah  to 
the  world.  They  were  to  be  the  objects  of  special 
divine  judgments  for  their  iniquities,  to  be  executed, 
in  part,  by  God's  chosen  people.  This  is  reason 
enough  why  they  should  be  particularly  referred  to 
by  the  dying  Patriarch.  But,  in  speaking  of  this 
miserable  future  of  the  son  of  Ham,  Noah  really 
makes  no  curse:  decrees  nothing:  entails  nothing 
either  upon  Ham  or  upon  Canaan :  he  simply  re- 
veals beforehand  what  was  to  be  the  future.  That 
future  was  a  miserable,  cursed  future :  but  Noah  did 
not  make  it  so  by  any  thing  he  said.  Prophecy  does 
not  make  the  future  of  which  it  speaks :  it  only  re- 
veals it  beforehand. 

This  prophetic  utterance  of  the  dying  Patriarch 
has  no  connection  whatever  with  Ham's  accidental, 
and  for  aught  the  Record  states,  innocent  notice  of 
his  father's  shame.  It  was  probably  spoken  hund- 
reds of  years  after  that  incident  occurred.*  That 
people,  and  even  grave  commentators,  can  so  far  lose 
their  wits  as  to  imagine  that  Noah,  just  as  he  was 
coming  out  of  a  fit  of  intoxication,  was  inspired  by 
Almighty  God  to  pronounce  a  terrible  malediction, 

*  It  la  no  very  unusual  thing  in  Scripture  for  events,  and  even  centuries,  to 
be  dropped  out  between  two  consecutive  verses,  and  those  linked  together  as  if 
in  immediate  succession,  which,  in  fact,  were  widely  separated." — PEES.  E. 
HITCHCOCK,  D.  D. 


04  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

as  a  divine  judgment  upon  Canaan  and  his  children, 
for  the  assumed  wickedness  of  Ham,  his  father,  is 
certainly  a  great  marvel.  This  is  making  the  chil- 
dren's teeth  snap  for  the  iniquities  of  the  father,  in 
right  good  earnest.  And  then,  to  extend  this  sup- 
posed malediction  to  the  other  children  of  Ham,  and 
their  descendants,  concerning  whom  nothing  at  all  is 
said  in  the  Sacred  Record,  and  make  that  a  warrant 
for  enslaving  said  descendants,  and  committing  all 
sorts  of  wrong  upon  them,  puts  the  worst  logic  the 
devil  ever  used  altogether  in  the  background.  Brave, 
indeed,  are  they  that  can  swallow  such  doctrines  and 
interpretations,  and  believe  them  precious  morsels  of 
divine  inspiration ! 

"Cursed  be  Canaan;  a  servant  of  servants  shall 
he  be  unto  his  brethren."  This  prophecy  concerning 
Canaan,  which  was  not  otherwise  a  prophecy  con- 
cerning Ham,  and  which  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
ether  children  of  Ham,  and  hence  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Africans,  received  its  fulfillment  in  the  after 
history  of  the  Canaanites.  The  prophetic  curse  was 
uttered  against  Canaan,  and  it  was  fulfilled  upon 
Canaan,  that  is,  upon  his  descendants.  It  has,  there- 
fore, no  more  to  do  with  the  inhabitants  of  Africa, 
than  it  has  with  the  serfs  of  Russia,  the  people  of 
Ireland,  or  the  American  Indians;  and  if  it  had,  it 
would  no  more  justify  the  enslavers  of  the  Africans, 
than  our  Savior's  prediction  that  Judas  should  be- 
tray him  justified  the  traitor  in  the  murderous 
betrayal  of  his  Master.  Prophecy  of  future  wicked- 
ness furnishes  no  justification  for  its  perpetration. 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  65 

It  even  adds  guilt  to  such  perpetration,  by  carrying 
with  it  some  sort  of  warning  against  it. 

SEC.  2. — Hagar. 

"  Now  Sarai,  Abram's  wife,  bore  him  no  children  : 
and  she  had  a  handmaid,  an  Egyptian,  whose  name 
was  Hagar." — Gen.  xvi :  1.  "Had"  her  how?  as  a 
slave,  or  as  a  handmaid?  The  Record  says,  as  "a 
handmaid."  She  is  nowhere  called  a  slave,  and  there 
is  not  the  least  hint,  in  the  whole  Mosaic  account  of 
her,  that  she  was  a  slave.  The  history  which  we  have 
of  her  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  clearly  shows  that  she 
occupied,  in  the  Abrahamic  household,  the  firsl  place, 
on  the  female  side,  next  to  Sarah :  as  Eliezer  of  Damas- 
cus occupied  the  first  place  next  to  Abraham,  on  the 
male  side.  To  count  either  of  these  persons  as  slaves, 
totally  mistakes  the  constitution  of  the  Abrahamic 
household ;  and  is  as  wide  of  the  mark  as  it  would  be 
to  pronounce  the  venerable  Secretary  of  State,  of  the 
late  administration,  and  the  lady  who  presided  at  the 
White  House  in  Washington,  President  Buchanan's 
slaves :  every  whit  as  far  from  the  truth.  Abraham 
was  a  prince,  at  the  head  of  a  powerful  clan :  Sarah, 
his  wife,  was  a  princess,  as  her  name  signifies:  the 
persons  on  both  sides  nearest  to  them,  and  most  inti- 
mately associated  with  them,  were  Eliezer  and  Hagar : 
Eliezer  as  steward,  or  first  overseer  of  affairs,  and 
Hagar  as  the  handmaid,  or  maid  of  honor,  to  Sarah. 
Eliezer  was  of  Damascus,  and  Hagar  was  of  Egypt — 
foreigners  of  the  most  honorable  type.  They  were 
both,  as  connected  with  the  Abrahamic  household,  or 
6 


66  $IBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

nation,  the  subjects  of  Abraham:  and  hence,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  common  language  of  the  times, 
they  were  called  servants.  The  official  servants  of  a 
leading  prince  or  chief  are  a  long  way  from  being 
chattel  slaves.  Eliezer  and  Hagar  are  never  called 
slaves:  and  there  is  not  the  least  intimation  in  the 
Sacred  History  that  they  ever  occupied  the  position 
of  slaves.  A  brief  survey  of  the  history  of  Hagar 
will  show  that  she  was  far  enough  from  occupying 
the  position  of  a  chattel  slave. 

Sarah,  finding  herself  barren,  and  despairing  of 
seeing  the  promise  fulfilled  of  a  numerous  seed,  un- 
dertook to  remedy  the  difficulty,  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  princes  of  the  times,  by  seeking  to 
obtain  children  by  her  Egyptian  handmaid.  This 
may  appear  to  us  moderns,  now  that  the  earth  is 
crowded  with  people,  and  infanticide  common,  and 
barrenness  is  regarded  as  a  favor  rather  than  other- 
wise, as  a  very  foolish  procedure.  But  in  order  to 
understand  it  fully,  we  need  to  remember,  that,  in 
the  early  ages,  the  desire  of  a  numerous  offspring 
was  one  of  the  strongest  sentiments  pervading  the 
minds  of  the  people.  As  a  public  sentiment,  the 
desire  of  perpetuating  name  and  family  was  over- 
whelming. In  modern  times,  even,  this  sentiment 
sometimes  becomes  very  strong.  Under  its  influ- 
ence the  great  Napoleon  committed  the  same  mis- 
take which  Sarah,  the  princess  of  Abraham,  did,  and 
upon  that  mistake  dashed  his  fortunes  to  fragments. 
Sarah  was  determined  to  remedy  the  calamity  and 
Disgrace  of  her  barrenness,  to  have  the  promise  ful- 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  67 

filled,  and  to  secure  seed,  and  the  perpetuity  of  the 
family.  Abraham  was  carried  away  with  the  plan, 
though  it  is  manifest  that  he  was  afterward  sorely 
rebuked  by  the  Almighty  for  his  weakness  and  un- 
belief. So  Sarah  "  took  Hagar,  her  maid,  the  Egyp- 
tian, and  gave  her  to  her  husband  Abram,  to  be  his 
wife."  Hagar  is  called  "the  Egyptian,"  as  denoting 
her  origin,  not  by  way  of  reproach,  but  by  way  of 
honor.  Egypt  was  then  the  most  powerful  and  hon- 
orable nation  in  the  world,  and  to  be  an  Egyptian, 
at  that  time,  was  a  most  honorable  distinction,  much 
as  it  was  afterward  to  be  a  Roman,  when  Rome  came 
to  be  in  the  ascendant.  And  Hagar,  the  high-born 
and  proud  Egyptian,  maid  of  honor  to  the  princess 
Sarah,  became  Abraham's  wife,  and  she  bare  him  a 
son.  Now,  abating  the  first  mistake,  this  was  an 
honorable  transaction.  Its  object  was  to  secure  heir- 
ship  in  the  family.  But  it  is  morally  certain  that 
Sarah,  the  princess,  would  never  have  given  to  Abra- 
ham, her  lord,  a  mighty  prince  of  the  land,  a  slave 
for  such  a  purpose  as  this ;  and  that  Abraham  would 
never  have  accepted  of  a  mere  slave  for  such  a  pur- 
pose. It  is  infinitely  absurd  to  suppose  this.  The 
first  mistake  being  granted  and  remembered,  it  is 
absolutely  certain  that  Sarah  would  select  for  Abra- 
ham the  lady  highest  in  honor,  and  esteem,  and 
rank  in  the  household.  Hence  she  gave  him  "  to  be 
his  wife" — to  occupy,  for  the  time  being,  the  same 
place  in  relation  to  Abraham  which  she  herself,  a 
princess,  occupied,  not  a  slave,  but  her  own  chosen 
handmaid,  Hagar,  of  the  rich  and  noble  Egyptian 


68  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

stock.  The  object  was  to  secure  honorable  heirship 
in  the  family.  How  absurd  to  suppose,  that  in  the 
household  of  a  mighty  prince,  a  slave  would  be  se- 
lected for  such  a  purpose! 

But  when  the  honor  of  being  the  mother  of  the 
Abrahamic  nation  appeared  likely  to  be  transferred 
from  the  true  princess  and  wife,  to  Hagar,  Sarah 
began  to  see  her  mistake.  To  secure  this  honor  for 
herself,  was  the  object  of  this  maneuver;  but  when 
the  thing  was  done,  Sarah's  eyes  were  opened  to  see 
how  the  matter  would  eventuate,  and  that  this  plan 
would  really  supplant  herself,  and  make  Hagar  the 
princess  and  mother  of  Israel.  She  appealed  to  Abra- 
ham for  redress.  But  after  things  had  proceeded 
thus  far,  what  could  he  do  by  way  of  redress  ?  His 
reply,  however,  is  magnanimous,  and  fully  exhonor- 
ates  him  from  all  base  and  ignoble  desires  in  this 
whole  affair.  "Behold  thy  maid  is  in  thy  hand;  do 
to  her  as  it  pleaseth  thee."  '  The  plan  was  yours 
from  the  outset ;  at  your  request  I  yielded  to  it,  and 
only  as  far  as  you  desired;  you  can  do  what  you 
choose  with  Hagar;  it  was  great  folly  in  us  both; 
whatever  you  can  do  to  repair  the  mischief,  you  are 
at  full  liberty  to  do;  I  have  no  claim  upon  Hagar, 
and  do  not  wish  to  have  any ;  the  Lord  Jehovah  for- 
give this  our  unbelief  and  foolishness  ! '  Sarah,  the 
prime  agent  in  this  wickedness,  chagrined  and  pro- 
voked, sought  relief,  human-nature-like,  by  trying 
to  degrade  Hagar.  She  bore  the  abuse  of  her  queenly 
mistress  as  long  as  she  we'll  could,  and  then,  just 
exactly  when  it  pleased  her,  she  left  Abraham's  house- 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  69 

hold,  to  take  care  of  herself.  She,  doubtless,  had 
had  her  share  in  the  wickedness  involved  in  this  un- 
happy affair,  and  so  it  was  fit  that  she  should  have 
some  share  in  the  mischiefs  resulting.  But  let  it 
evermore  be  remembered  that  Hagar  left  her  adopted 
household  a  free  woman,  just  when  she  pleased,  and 
went  whithersoever  she  would ;  and  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  there  was  any  slave-hunt  to  catch  her,  or 
bring  her  back. 

This  piece  of  wickedness,  the  result  of  a  mistaken 
notion  at  the  outset,  was  a  terrible  blow  to  the  hap- 
piness of  the  Patriarch's  family.  But  after  the  thing 
was  done,  it  could  not  be  undone  or  altered.  The 
only  question  then  was,  What  could  be  done  to  rem- 
edy it?  God  had  far-reaching  purposes  concerning 
this  son  of  Abraham,  by  Hagar,  though  he  was  by' 
no  means  the  true  heir.  Hence  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  that  met  her  in  the  wilderness,  directed  her 
to  return  to  Abraham's  household,  and  if  she  re- 
turned, of  course,  she  must  acknowledge  Sarah  as 
first  princess  in  the  family,  and  submit  to  her  au- 
thority as  superior.  As  a  female  member  of  the 
household,  she  must  be  subject  to  her;  she  must 
"  submit  herself  under  her  hands."  Although  her 
position  had  been  a  high  and  honorable  one,  never- 
theless, she  must  be  subject  to  the  female  head  of 
the  clan.  In  all  this,  there  is  not  the  least  intima- 
tion that  she  was  to  be  put  into,  or  occupy,  the  place 
of  a  slave.  So  Hagar,  of  genuine  Egyptian  blood, 
became  the  mother  of  that  wonderful  race,  the  Ish- 
maelites,  next  in  honor  and  rank  in  the  Abrahamic 


70  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

family,  to  Sarah,  the  true  princess,  and  mother  of 
that  still  more  wonderful  people,  the  Jews,  from 
whom,  as  concerning  the  flesh,  our  Lord  and  Savior 
sprang. 

NOTE. — Effort  is  sometimes  made  to  convict  Abra- 
ham and  Sarah  of  slaveholding,  in  the  case  of  Hagar 
on  the  ground  of  what  the  apostle  Paul  says  of  Hagar, 
as  a  "bondwoman,"  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians. 
Our  English  translation  makes  him  call  her  a  "  bond- 
woman." But  this  is  not  calling  her  a  "slave."  He 
might  have  contemplated  her  as  a  "bondwoman,"  in 
a  variety  of  senses,  without  regarding  her  at  all  as  a 
slave  bondwoman.  Indeed,  a  little  careful  examina- 
tion shows,  at  once,  that  Paul  regarded  Hagar  as  in 
some  particular  sense  a  "bondwoman,"  as  she  was, 
but  not  at  all  as  a  "slave  bondwoman"  as  she  was 
not.  The  Greek  word  which  he  applies  to  her,  and 
which  is  translated  "  bondwoman,"  is  never  used 
elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  to  mean  a  slave,  or 
any  thing  like  it.  That  word  is  Kacdioxy,  paidiskee, 
and  properly  means  a  girl,  or  young  maiden.  This 
word  occurs  only  in  seven  other  passages  in  the  New 
Testament;  to  all  of  which  we  will  refer,  in  order 
that  the  reader  may  see  for  himself  what  the  usage 
is.  Matt,  xxvi :  69 — "  Now  Peter  sat  without  in  the 
palace :  and  a  '  damsel '  came  unto  him,  saying,  Thou 
also  wast  with  Jesus  of  Galilee."  Mark  xiv:  66, 
69  —  "And  as  Peter  was  beneath  in  the  palace, 
there  cometh  one  of  the  ' maids'  of  the  high  priest." 
"And  a  'maid'  saw  him  again,"  etc.  Luke  xiv;  45 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.          71 

• — "And  shall  begin  to  beat  the  men-servants  and 
'maidens,111  etc.  xxii :  56 — "But  a  certain  'maid' 
beheld  him  [Peter]  as  he  sat  by  the  fire,"  etc. 
John  xviii:  17  —  "Then  saith  the  'damsel'  that 
kept  the  door  unto  Peter,"  etc.  Acts  xii :  13 — "A 
'  damsel'  came  to  hearken  named  Rhoda,"  etc.  xvi : 
16 — "  And  it  came  to  pass,  as  we  went  to  prayer,  a 
certain  '  damsel '  possessed  with  a  spirit  of  divination 
met  us,"  etc. 

These  passages  embrace  all  the  places  in  the  New 
Testament  where  the  word  which  Paul  applies  to 
Hagar  in  Galatians,  and  which  is  translated  "bond- 
woman," occurs.  If  the  reader  will  bear  in  mind 
the  fact,  stated  by  Kitto,  that  slavery  did  not  exist 
in  the  land  of  Judah  at  the  time  the  events  alluded 
to  in  these  passages  took  place,  he  will  see,  at  once, 
that  there  is  not,  in  any  of  them,  the  remotest  possible 
allusion  to  slave  or  slaveiy.  In  a  land  of  freedom 
'  damsel '  does  not  mean  slave.  The  Septuagint  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament  applies  this  same  word 
to  Kuth,  in  the  Book  of  Ruth,  iv :  12,  who,  surely, 
was  not  a  slave,  though  Boaz  does  say  he  "pur- 
chased" her ;  not,  indeed,  to  be  his  slave,  but  "to  be 
his  wife!"  There  is,  therefore,  not  the  least  sha- 
dow of  evidence  that  Paul  had  the  most  distant 
reference  to  slave  or  slavery  in  what  he  says  of 
Hagar  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  And  besides 
this  testimony  from  the  usage  of  words,  we  are  to 
remember  that  no  Jew,  as  we  have  already  seen,  would 
ever  think  of  regarding  the  mother  of  Ishmael  as  a 
slave,  much  less  such  a  Hebrew  writer  as  was  Saint 


72  BIBLE    SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

Paul.  The  idea  of  slave  was  an  exotic  in  the  ancient 
Hebrew  mind,  never  sufficiently  naturalized  to  it  to 
have  a  Hebrew  word  to  express  it.  It  is  a  gross 
and  total  mistake  to  be  looking  for  slavery  at  every 
crook  and  turn  of  Bible  language.  Its  writers  all 
wrote  under  the  light  and  liberty  of  freedom.  Slav- 
ery was  a  thing  almost  wholly  unknown  to  them. 
They  were  unacquainted  with  it :  they  were  not  fami- 
liar with  it.  The  apostle  Paul  uses  language,  as  do 
all  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  not  in  the  base  South 
Carolina  sense,  but  in  the  ancient,  free,  Hebrew  sense. 

SEC.  3. — Gen.  xvii :  12-27. 

Verse  12.  "And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall 
be  circumcised  among  you,  every  man-child  in  your 
generations,  he  that  is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought 
with  money  of  any  stranger  which  is  not  of  thy 
seed."  This  verse  is  found  in  the  middle  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  institution  of  the  rite  of  circumcision. 
We  beg  leave  to  quote  the  passage  entire,  from  the 
9th  verse  to  the  14th  inclusive : 

"9.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shalt  keep  my 
covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their 
generations. 

"  10.  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep,  between 
me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee ;  Every  man-child  among 
you  shall  be  circumcised. 

"11.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin; 
and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you. 

"12.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised 
among  you,  every  man-child  in  your  generations ;  he  that  is 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  73 

born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  any  stranger, 
which  is  not  of  thy  seed. 

"  13.  He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he  that  is  bought 
with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circumcised:  and  my  cove- 
nant shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting  covenant. 

"14.  And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose  flesh  of  his 
foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from 
his  people;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant." 

This  is  the  Mosaic  account  of  the  institution  of 
the  rite  of  circumcision.  The  rite  itself  is  only  a 
"token,"  sign,  or  seal  of  a  "covenant." 

One  of  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  this  rite 
was,  that  it  should  include  every  male  in  the  Abra- 
hamic  household.  In  making  the  rite  universal, 
without  exception  as  to  the  males  in  the  Abrahamic 
household,  allusion  is  distinctly  made,  in  the  12th 
and  13th  verses,  to  the  different  elements  of  that 
household.  Three  distinct  classes  of  persons  are  de- 
signated, as  embracing  the  whole  circle  of  the  house- 
hold ;  namely,  (1,)  the  children  proper ;  (2,)  children 
"  born  in  the  house,"  not  of  the  family  proper ;  (3,) 
and  those  bought  with  money,  which  were  of  foreign 
blood.  These  three  classes  of  persons  belonged  to 
the  Patriarchal  household,  and  were  members  of  it ; 
hence  they  are  distinctly  designated  in  this  account 
of  the  institution  of  the  rite  of  circumcision.  The 
language  here  used  was  not  designed  to  describe 
particularly  the  social  status,  or  condition  of  these 
several  classes ;  but  rather  to  refer  to  them  as  exist- 
ing classes,  all  of  which  were  to  be  included  in  the 
rite  of  circumcision.  The  object  of  the  writer,  in 
7 


74  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

referring  to  these  several  classes,  manifestly  was, 
simply  to  include  all  the  elements  of  the  Patriarchal 
household  in  the  rite  of  circumcision.  The  phrase, 
"bought  with  money,"  or  more  accurately,  "  the  pur- 
chase of  silver,"  designates,  with  sufficient  clearness, 
one  class  of  persons  belonging  to  the  household,  but 
determines  nothing,  as  we  have  seen,  in  regard  to 
the  social  condition  of  those  so  bought.  Free  serv- 
ants could  be  "the  purchase  of  silver"  just  as  well 
as  slave  servants.  For  we  learn  from  other  sources, 
that  this  phrase,  "bought  with  money,"  commonly 
referred  to  services,  and  not  to  persons,  in  the  sense 
of  property,  at  all;  and  hence  the  presumption 
always  is,  when  this  phrase  is  used  in  regard  to 
servants,  that  it  refers  to  free  servants,  whose  serv- 
ices have  been  bought  of  themselves. 

The  peculiar  phraseology  of  our  translation  of  the 
12th  verse  of  this  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis,  is 
liable  to  an  erroneous  interpretation.  The  phrase, 
"bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of 
thy  seed,"  may  be  understood  as  referring  to  persons 
bought  of  others,  a  third  party,  who  were  the  sellers. 
But  this  is  manifestly  not  the  meaning  of  the  original 
Hebrew.  T.he  true  meaning  is  that  given  by  Prof. 
Bush,  in  his  translation  of  this  passage,  which  is  as 
follows :  "A  son  of  eight  days  old  shall  be  circum- 
cised unto  you ;  every  male  in  your  generations,  the 
born  in  the  house,  and  the  purchase  of  silver,  from, 
that  is,  even  or  including  every  son  of  the  stranger, 
which  is  not  of  thy  seed."  On  this  passage  he  also 
remarks:  "This  passage  affords  no  countenance  to 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  75 

the  idea  of  Abraham's  having  bought  slaves  of  others 
who  claimed  an  ownership  in  them."  The  idea  of 
a  third  party,  of  whom  the  individuals  referred  to 
were  bought,  does  not  belong  to  the  passage  at  all. 
Prof.  J.  Morgan,  D.  D.,  of  Oberlin  College,  Ohio, 
gives  the  following  translation  of  this  same  verse : 
"He  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be  circumcised 
among  you,  every  male  of  your  generations,  the 
house-born  and  the  money-purchase  of  any  stranger, 
who  is  not  of  thy  seed."  .In  regard  to  the  phrase, 
"of  any  stranger,"  he  remarks,  that  it  "denotes  the 
origin  or  source  of  the  purchased  servant,  but  does 
not  determine  the  seller,  who,  for  aught  this  expres- 
sion certainly  shows,  might  be  the  purchased  one 
himself."  Other  authorities  and  opinions  might  be 
given  to  the  same  effect.  The  commentary  habit 
of  making  this  passage  teaeh .  that  Abraham  had 
chattel  slaves,  is  sheer  mistake  foisted  upon  God's 
pure  Bible  out  of  that  enormous  pro-slavery  sink> 
modern  pro-slavery  prejudice.  This  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture only  innocently  refers  to  the  different  elements 
which  entered  into  the  Patriarchal  household,  for 
the  purpose  of  making  the  rite  of  circumcision  in- 
clude the  whole,  without  exception.  Of  precisely 
the  same  import  is  the  27th  verse  of  this  same  chap- 
ter, a  literal  translation  of  which  is  as  follows :  "  And 
all  the  men  of  his  house,  the  home-born,  and  the 
purchase  of  money  from  with  the  stranger,  were  cir- 
cumcised with  him." 

These  passages  are  interesting  as  giving  us  a  clue 
to  the  constitution  and  several  elements  of  the  Pa- 


76  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

triarchal  household.  This  constitution,  as  we  have 
seen,  grew  out  of  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  the 
necessities  of  the  times.  These  elements  were  the 
natural  and  necessary  elements  of  the  compound  Pa- 
triarchal family.  These  elements,  as  we  have  before 
proved,  were,  of  necessity,  free  elements,  attached  to 
the  household  in  different  ways,  according  to  well 
understood  and  universal  usages.  They  have  no 
more  to  do  with  chattel  slavery  than  they  have  to 
do  with  Indian  pow-wows.  To  make  slavery  out  of 
any  of  these  elements  is  a  simple  gratuity,  hatched  in 
modern  theological  ovens,  and  made  to  peep  to  pacify 
the  consciences  of  modern  slaveholding  criminals. 

SEC.  4. — Joseph. 

According  to  the  current  interpretation  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  Joseph  must  surely  have  been 
a  slave.  To  doubt  this,  lays  one  open  to  suspicions 
of  irreverence  for  the  Bible,  if  not  of  downright  in- 
fidelity. And  here  we  make  our  confession.  We 
believe  most  fully  that  God  has  given  to  the  world 
a  veritable  Bible  :  that  that  Bible  has  been  preserved 
to  and  for  the  race :  that  the  writings  now  known  as 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  are  that  Bible :  and 
we  believe,  moreover,  that,  according  to  this  genuine 
Bible,  Joseph,  eleventh  son  of  Jacob,  true  son  of 
Isaac,  promised  son  of  Abraham,  never  was  in  the 
condition  of  a  chattel  slave,  the  current  notion  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding.  We  believe  that  a  care- 
ful and  candid  examination  of  the  true  Scripture 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  77 

account  of  Joseph,  as  given  in  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
and  alluded  to  elsewhere  in  the  Bible,  will  show  that 
Joseph  was  never  considered  as  a  slave  either  by 
those  whom  he  served,  or  by  himself.  Our  object 
in  seeking  to  make  this  appear,  is  not  so  much  to 
vindicate  the  Bible  from  pro-slavery  interpretations, 
as  to  throw  additional  light  upon  the  constitution  of 
Patriarchal  and  primitive  society,  as  being  a  state 
of  society  free  from  chattel  slavery,  and  as  having, 
in  its  stead,  various  forms  of  free,  servitude.  Bight 
at  this  point  lies  the  great  mistake  that  has  been 
made  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Ignorance  of 
the  constitution  and  genius  of  Patriarchal  and  primi- 
tive society  has  converted  ancient  free  servitude 
into  modern  chattel  slavery,  and  so  has  foisted  a 
monstrous  and  abominable  perversion  upon  the  Sa- 
cred Record,  which  absolutely  threatens  its  utter 
subversion. 

But  if  we  admit  that  Joseph  was  really  a  slave, 
and  was  so  held  and  treated,  the  pro-slavery  side  of 
the  question  gains  nothing,  inasmuch  as  the  divine 
disapprobation  is  clearly  expressed  against  all  the 
oppressive  treatment  which  Joseph  received  at  the 
hand  of  his  brethren  and  others.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, to  vindicate  the  history  of  Joseph  from  pro- 
slavery  abuse,  which,  after  all,  is  but  a  harmless 
abuse,  that  we  enter  upon  its  examination,  but  ra- 
ther, if  possible,  to  set  that  history  in  its  true  light, 
as  a  help  to  'a  right  understanding  of  the  social 
status  of  the  times. 


78  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMIKED. 

"  Now,  Israel  loved  Joseph  more  than  all  his  chil- 
dren, because  he  was  the  son  of  his  old  age:"  but 
his  brethren  "envied"  him  and  ""hated"  him. — 
Gen.  xxxvii.  When,  therefore,  their  father  Jacob 
sent  Joseph  to  his  brethren  in  Dotham,  to  see  whether 
it  was  well  with  them  and  the  flocks,  they  conspired 
against  him  and  sought  to  kill  him.  The  result  of 
their  conspiracy,  however,  was,  that  he  was  "sold" 
to  the  Ishmaelites,  and  by  them  taken  down  into 
Egypt  and  "  sold  "  to  "  Potiphar,  an  officer  of  Pha- 
raoh's, and  captain  of  the  guard."  Most  persons 
who  read  this  account,  suppose,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  if  Joseph  was  "  sold  "  by  one  party,  and  "  bought " 
by  another,  he  was  sold  as  a  chattel  slave,  and  bought 
as  a  chattel  slave.  They  suppose  this,  because  this 
is  the  modern  sense  of  buying  and  selling,  when  ap- 
plied to  persons.  But  this  is  purely  a  pro-slavery 
mistake.  The  fact  of  buying  and  selling,  in  ancient 
usages,  proves  nothing  in  regard  to  the,  condition 
into  which  the  individuals  were  bought.  Anciently, 
fathers  "  sold "  their  daughters  to  their  intended 
husbands,  for  money:  and  men  "bought"  their  in- 
tended wives,  and  paid  money  for  them.  But  the 
fathers  sold  their  daughters  not  into  the  condition 
of  chattel  slaves,  but  into  the  condition  of  wives: 
and  the  husbands  bought  their  wives  not  into  the 
condition  of  chattel  slaves,  but  into  the  condition  of 
wives :  and  the  whole  transaction  had  no  more  to  do 
with  chattel  slavery,  than  it  had  with  the  man  in  the 
moon.  In  those  times,  "  buying  "  and  "  selling  " 
did  not  mean  slavery,  as  now.  In  the  early  settle- 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.          79 

ment  of  Virginia,  the  settlers  being  destitute  of 
wives,  English  merchantmen  brought  over  cargoes 
of  young  women  from  the  mother  country  and  sold 
them  to  the  needy  settlers  for  one  hundred  and 
twenty  pounds  of  tobacco  apiece.  Sold  them  for 
what  ?  Slaves  ?  No :  for  wives.  The  buying  and 
selling  did  not  make  them  slaves.  It  only  very  in- 
nocently made  them  genuine  wives — that  is  all.  The 
buying  and  selling  did  not  determine  the  condition 
or  state  into  which  they  were  bought.  So  the  buy- 
ing and  selling  of  Joseph  determines  nothing  in 
regard  to  the  condition  into  which  he  was  bought. 
It  is  manifest  that  Joseph  was  sold  by  his  brethren, 
not  as  a  chattel  slave,  but  as  a  hated  and  disagreeable 
member  of  the  household,  of  whom  they  wished  to  be 
rid.  Their  object  was  to  get  rid  of  him,  as  an  an- 
noyance. At  first,  they  proposed  to  kill  him;  and, 
undoubtedly,  would  have  killed  him,  if  the  special 
providence  of  God  had  not  presented  before  them  an- 
other method  of  getting  him  out  of  the  way.  Joseph 
was,  doubtless,  well  aware  of  their  intentions,  and,  in 
all  probability,  expressly  consented  to  the  disposition 
that  was  afterward  made  of  him.  Perhaps  it  was  at 
his  earnest  solicitation,  seconded  by  that  of  Judah, 
that  they  determined  to  shuffle  him  off  to  the  Ish- 
maelites,  who,  being  on  their  way  to  Egypt,  would  be 
likely  to  take  him  fully  out  of  the  way.  Of  course, 
if  they  could  get  a  few  pieces  of  silver  in  making 
the  transfer,  they  would  do  it.  They  thus  shuffled 
him  off  from  the  family,  not  as  their  slave,  but  as 
a  troublesome  member.  There  is  not  the  remotest 


80  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

shadow  of  evidence  that  the  brethren  of  Joseph  either 
regarded  or  sold  him  as  a  slave.  They  simply  wished 
to  get  rid  of  him,  to  get  him  out  of  the  household. 
So  they  thrust  him  out,  and  delivered  him  into  the 
hands  of  an  Ishmaelitish  tribe,  or  caravan,  who  were 
traveling  to  Egypt.  They  were  "  merchantmen  :  " 
but  not  slave-traders,  any  more  than  the  English 
merchantmen  who  carried  the  English  ladies  to  Vir- 
ginia, and  sold  them  for  a  hundred  and  twenty 
pounds  of  tobacco  apiece,  were  slave-traders.  There 
is  not  the  most  distant  intimation  in  the  Sacred  His- 
tory that  these  Ishmaelites  were  merchantmen  in 
slaves.  They  were  merchantmen,  traveling  to  Egypt, 
but  not  slave-dealers. 

The  lad  Joseph  being  thus  forcibly  thrust  out,  and 
forbidden  to  return  on  peril  of  his  life,  and  being 
under  the  necessity  of  being  somewhere  connected 
with  some  household  or  tribe,  or  of  being  a  solitary, 
wandering  vagabond,  and  being  forcibly  delivered 
over,  and  transferred  to  the  Ishmaelites,  had  no  al- 
ternative but  to  go  with  them  and  be  their  servant : 
that  is,  belong  to  the  company,  or  clan,  as  a  bought- 
with-money  servant.  This  forcible  transfer  did  not 
make  him  a  chattel  slave.  I  have  seen  lads  of  much 
the  same  age,  in  free,  Puritan  New  England,  forcibly 
transferred  from  one  family  to  another,  and  nobody 
ever  dreamed  of  slavery  in  the  case.  The  Ishmael- 
ites manifestly  received  Joseph  as  a  bought-with- 
money  servant:  an  unchattelized  servant  of  that 
class,  and  by  no  means  as  a  chattel  slave.  As  such, 
they  made  a  transfer  of  him  for  money  to  Potiphar, 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.          81 

chief  marshal  of  Egypt.  That  he  was  so  received  by 
the  Egyptian  officer  is  manifest  from  the  subsequent 
history.  The  Mosaic  account  proceeds  to  say,  that 
"The  Lord  was  with  Joseph,"  in  the  house  of  his 
master,  and  "  he  was  a  prosperous  man."  Not  a 
good  slave,  but  a  "prosperous  man.1'  The  whole 
record  assumes  that  Joseph  considered  himself,  and 
was  recognized  by  others,  as  occupying  the  position 
of  a  free  serving  man,  and  not  that  of  a  slave.  As 
a  free  serving  man,  he  very  speedly  arose  to  the  posi- 
tion of  chief  officer  in  the  household  of  his  master. 
Note  the  language  :  "  And  Joseph  found  grace  in  his 
sight,  and  he  served  him."  "/Served"  him  when? 
At  the  very  time  when  he  was  highest  in  the  confi- 
dence and  favor  of  his  master.  At  the  hight  of  his 
prosperity  in  the  house  of  his  master  he  still  "  served." 
Served  how  ?  as  a  slave  ?  By  no  means :  but  as  first 
officer  and  manager  of  all  that  he  had  !  So  the  Eecord 
reads.  Now  this  is  never  the  course  of  affairs  where 
the  condition  of  things  is  that  of  chattel  slavery. 
No  slave  bought  with  money,  after  the  modern 
Southern  method  of  buying,  and  in  the  Southern 
sense,  could  ever  rise  to  be  first  officer  in  the  house- 
hold of  Major-Gen.  Scott.  Potiphar  was  chief  mar- 
shal of  the  kingdom :  Joseph  was  first  officer  and 
overseer  in  his  house.  This  is  not  the  history  of  a 
chattel  slave.  It  never  can  be.  It  is  the  history  of 
a  recognized  free  man,  attached  to  the  house  of  Poti- 
phar, precisely  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the 
times ;  at  first,  indeed,  as  a  bought-with-money  serv- 
ant, but  always  as  a  goodly  and  prosperous  man. 


82  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   HE-EXAMINED. 

And  when  Potiphar's  wife  accused  Joseph  falsely 
before  his  master,  and  his  wrath  was  kindled  against 
Joseph,  Potiphar  proceeds  against  him  and  punishes 
him  altogether  as  a  recognized  man;  and  not  as  a  de- 
graded, chattel  slave.  Joseph  is  not  whipped  and 
sent  back  to  his  slave  task;  he  is  not  sold  off  from 
the  premises ;  but  he  is  put  into  the  prison  "  where 
the  king's  prisoners  were  bound :  "  all  as  an  unchat- 
telized  man — as  an  official  character  guilty  of  crime, 
and  not  at  all  as  a  chattel  slave. 
-  So,  during  all  the  time  in  which  he  was  a  prisoner, 
he  appears  as  an  unchattelized  man-prisoner,  and, 
in  no  respect,  as  a  slave-prisoner.  Joseph's  history 
in  prison  is  manifestly  the  history  of  a  recognized 
free  man ;  forcibly  thrust  away,  indeed,  from  his  na- 
tive household  and  nation,  and  attached  to  a  foreign 
family  in  a  foreign  land.  It  is  a  history  impossible 
to  a  chattel  slave.  Notice  Joseph's  request  to  the 
chief  butler :  "  But  think  on  me  when  it  shall  be 
well  with  thee,  and  show  kindness,  I  pray  thee,  unto 
me,  and  make  mention  of  me  unto  Pharaoh,  and 
bring  me  out  of  this  house."  And  make  mention 
of  me  unto  Pharaoh !  What  a  request  for  a  mere 
chattel  slave,  of  foreign  and  hated  blood,  thrown  into 
prison  by  the  chief  marshal  of  the  kingdom,  for  as- 
serted, flagrant  crime,  to  present  to  a  high  officer 
of  the  most  powerful  monarch  that  then  pressed  an 
earthly  throne !  What  had  a  miserable  slave,  in  an 
Egyptian  dungeon,  to  do  with  an  Egyptian  Pharaoh, 
in  the  days  of  Egyptian  greatness  and  splendor? 
Who  ever  heard  of  such  a  request  as  this  from  the 


PATRIARCHAL  SERVITUDE.  83 

jails  or  slave-pens  of  Washington  finding  its  way 
up  into  the  White  House  ?  The  truth  is,  this  is  his- 
tory that  never  belongs  to  slavery,  and  such  as  can 
belong  only  to  freedom.  If  Joseph  had  been  the 
slave  property  of  Potiphar,  he  would  have  had  more 
sense  than  to  have  made  such  a  request  as  this :  just 
as  there  is  not  a  slave  in  all  the  South  who  has  not 
more  sense  than  to  present  such  a  request  as  this  to 
any  President  of  the  United  States. 

Well,  time  passes  on,  and  Pharaoh  has  a  remark- 
able dream.  They  send  for  Joseph  to  interpret  it. 
In  all  the  history  that  follows,  there  is  not  the  least 
intimation  or  indication  that  Joseph  was  regarded 
as  occupying  the  condition  of  a  slave.  Let  him  who 
doubts  this  statement  find  it,  if  he  can.  But  mean- 
while, observe  one  or  two  incidental  particulars. 
"  And  it  came  to  pass,  at  the  end  of  two  full  years, 
that  Pharaoh  dreamed."  Joseph,  then,  had  been 
confined  in  the  prison  two  full  years,  Did  Potiphar 
lose  these  two  full  years  of  slave  service  ?  Or  did 
the  royal  treasury  open  its  coffers,  and  grant  him  re- 
muneration ?  Or  what  did  poor  Potiphar  do  about 
these  two  full  years  of  slave  service  due  him? 
The  history  certainly  leaves  us  in  great  darkness 
and  trouble  concerning  Potiphar's  pay.  It  does  not 
even  say  one  word  about  this  slaveholder's  whining 
over  his  loss.  Strange  that  he  did  not  think  to  tie 
up  this  Hebrew  dog,  and  give  him  a  sound  flogging, 
and  send  him  back  to  his  work  again,  and  so  save 
these  two  full  years  of  slave  labor.  A  blundering 


84  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

fellow  he,  for  chief  marshal  of  mighty  Egypt,  and 
strangely  destitute  of  modern  wit. 

"  Then  Pharaoh  sent  and  called  Joseph,  and  they 
brought  him  hastily  out  of  the  dungeon:  and  he 
shaved  himself  and  changed  his  raiment  and  came 
in  unto  Pharaoh."  Indeed !  "What  business  had 
this  piece  of  Potiphar's  property  with  the  toilet  and 
changes  of  raiment  ?  What  odds  does  it  make  with 
the  miserable  slave  how  he  appears  before  the  great 
ones  of  earth  ?  and  where  did  Joseph  get  his  changes 
of  raiment?  Were  there  abolitionists  in  Egypt  in 
those  days  to  make  the  needed  contribution  ?  Or 
did  master  slaveholding  Potiphar  expect  a  big,  round 
*sum  for  this  job  of  dream-interpretation,  and  so 
rigged  Joe  out  in  court-style,  especially  for  the  occa- 
sion ?  When  a  similar  affair  is  got  up  at  the  "  White 
House,"  "may  I  be  there  to  see !" 

We  beseech  the  reader  to  turn  to  the  forty-first 
chapter  of  Genesis,  and  read  carefully  the  whole  chap- 
ter through,  with  this  one  inquiry  in  his  mind :  "Is 
this  the  history  of  a  chattel  slave,  or  is  it  the  history 
of  a  free  man  ?  "  Stop,  we  pray  thee,  right  here,  and 
get  your  Bible  and  read  the  whole  chapter,  and  we 
are  sure  that  you  will  be  ready  to  say  with  us,  that 
such  history  as  this  never  did  and  never  can  belong 
to  slavery.  Do  not  say  that  Joseph  must  have  been 
a  slave  after  all.  There  is  no  "must"  about  it^ 
except  what  modern  pro-slavery  prejudice  has  af- 
fixed to  the  case.  A  careful  examination  of  the 
history,  in  the  light  of  the  social  arrangements  of 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  85 

society  in  those  early  times,  before  oppression  and 
trespass  upon  personal  rights  had  extended  to  chat- 
telism,  shows  at  once  that  slavery  was  not  there. 
And  if  American  slavery  should  exist  ten  thousand 
years,  we  should  have  neither  fear,  nor  hope,  that 
such  a  piece  of  history  as  this  would  ever  turn  up. 
There  is  not  the  least  evidence  in  all  the  history  of 
Joseph,  that  he  was  ever  treated  or  regarded  in 
Egypt  as  a  chattel  slave.  His  interview  with  Pha- 
raoh has  all  the  characteristics  of  an  interview  of  a 
free  man  with  a  monarch  acknowledging  him  as 
such.  His  bearing  is  noble,  manly,  and  dignified. 
Base  slavery  is  not  there.  If  it  had  been,  the  king's 
ring  had  never  been  put  upon  Joseph's  hand,  the 
golden  chain  had  never  been  put  about  his  neck, 
and  the  royal  vestures  had  never  clothed  his  goodly 
person.  Slavery  would  have  sent  him  sneaking  off 
to  his  kennel  and  to  his  pack-horse  service,  to  wear 
his  life  out  in  dehumanizing  work,  and  subserviency 
to  the  robber-will  of  another,  without  pay. 

NOTE. — In  the  105th  Psalm,  commencing  at  the 
17th  verse,  occurs  the  following  passage :  "  He  sent 
a  man  before  them,  even  Joseph,  who  was  sold  for  a 
servant :  Whose  feet  they  hurt  with  fetters  :  he  was 
laid  in  iron :  Until  the  time  that  his  word  came : 
the  word  of  the  Lord  tried  him.  The  king  sent  and 
loosed  him:  even  the  ruler  of  the  people,  and  let 
him  go  free.  He  made  him  lord  of  his  house,  and 
ruler  of  his  substance:  To  bind  his  princes  at  his 
pleasure  :  and  teach  his  senators  wisdom." 


86  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

"  Who  was  sold  for  a  servant."  Some  of  the  com- 
mentators say  he  was  sold  for  a  slave.  But  this 
passage  does  not  say  that :  nor  is  that  said  anywhere 
in  the  Bible.  This  Psalm  says  he  was  sold  for  a 
servant :  whether  for  a  slave  servant,  or  for  a  free 
servant,  it  does  not  specify.  It  is  great  hermeneu- 
tical  blundering  to  give  a  specific  and  limited  sense 
to  a  general  term  when  there  is  nothing  in  the  con- 
nection to  demand  it.  Even  if  Joseph  was  a  slave, 
there  is  no  authority  for  making  this  Psalm  say  so : 
for  it  does  not  say  so,  any  more  than  the  Sacred 
Becord  says  that  Moses,  and  David,  and  Paul,  were 
slaves.  It  says  truly,  that  Joseph  was  sold  for  a 
servant,  but  what  kind  of  a  servant,  it  does  not  say. 
It  is  only  by  assuming  that  Joseph  was  a  slave,  that 
the  commentators  make  this  passage  from  the  Psalms 
call  Joseph  a  slave.  The  passage  itself  says  no  such 
thing.  You  might  just  as  well  assume  that  Joseph 
was  a  porter-servant  in  some  ancient  Egyptian  hotel, 
and  translate :  "He  was  sold  for  a  porter;"  or  that 
he  was  a  sexton -servant,  and  translate:  "He  was 
sold  for  a  sexton ;"  as  to  assume  that  he  was  a  slave- 
servant,  and  translate :  "  He  was  sold  for  a  slave." 

"  Whose  feet  they  hurt  with  fetters :  he  was  laid 
in  iron :  Until  the  time  that  his  word  came :  the 
word  of  the  Lord  tried  him."  All  this  refers  un- 
questionably to  the  time  when  he  was  in  prison : 
and  hence  has  nothing  to  do  with  his  condition  as  a 
servant,  whether  he  was  a  slave  or  not.  "  Whose 
feet  they  hurt  with  fetters."  Not  Potiphar,  his  mas- 
ter, as  a  slaveholder,  birt,  as  Dr.  Alexander  explains : 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  87 

"the  Egyptians,  or  his  gaolers."  The  king  sent  and 
loosed  him:  even  the  ruler  of  the  people,  and  let 
him  go  free."  In  regard  to  this  verse,  Dr.  Alexan- 
der also  says :  "  Both  verbs  strictly  apply  to  the  re- 
moval of  his  fetters,  the  first  meaning  properly  to 
knock  off,  the  other  to  open  for  the  purpose  of  re- 
moving." The  sense,  then,  of  this,  is  simply  that 
the  king,  Pharaoh,  having  doubtless  become  satisfied 
of  Joseph's  innocence,  -brought  him  out  of  prison. 
There  is  not  the  least  imaginable  allusion  to  emanci- 
pating him  as  a  slave.  An  infinitely  shallow  place 
this,  to  fish  for  Bible  slavery. 

These  verses  allude  to  Joseph  just  as  if  he  was  a 
free  man,  and  not  at  all  as  if  he  was  a  slave.  They 
refer  to  the  fact  that  he  was  sold  for  a  servant,  that 
he  was  imprisoned  and  fettered,  and  lay  there  for 
the  trial  of  his  faith  till  the  king  sent  and  brought 
him  out ;  and  that  Pharaoh  placed  him  next  to  the 
throne  as  lord  of  his  house  and  ruler  of  Egypt :  all 
just  as  if  Joseph  was,  all  the  while,  a  free  man,  and 
not  at  all  as  if  he  was  a  slave.  And  if  our  minds 
had  not  become  accustomed  to  pro-slavery  ideas  and 
practices,  and  debauched  with  pro-slavery  interpre- 
tations of  the  Word  of  God,  we  should  no  more 
think  of  looking  for  slavery  in  such  passages  of 
Scripture  as  this,  than  we  should  in  the  valediction 
at  the  end  of  Wilberforce's  letters:  "Your  obedient 
servant'1  It  would  be  a  great  deliverance  indeed,  if 
the  American  mind  could  be  relieved  of  the  illusion 
that  servant  means  slave.  This  would  let  great  light 
into  a  very  dark  place. 


88  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

CHAPTER   IX. 

A  WONDERFUL  AND  SUBLIME   PROPHECY 

"  For  I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  chil- 
dren and  his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall 
keep  the  way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judg- 
ment ;  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that 
which  he  hath  spoken  of  him." — Gen.  xviii:  19. 

THIS  is  the  word  of  the  Lord,  concerning  Abra- 
ham. It  is  both  testimony  to  present  fact,  and  pro- 
phecy in  regard  to  the  future. 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  divine  arrangement  in 
populating  the  earth  after  the  flood,  that  particular 
individuals  should  be  representative  fathers  of  fami- 
lies, tribes,  peoples,  and  nations.  Such  individuals 
were  endowed  with  the  power  of  national  progeni- 
ture.  As  type  progenitors,  they  gave  cast  and  char- 
acter to  the  whole  line  of  their  posterity.  Canaan 
begat  Canaanites — children  after  his  own  likeness. 
Ishmael  had  Ishmaelites  for  sons  and  daughters  in 
all  after  time.  So  of  other  representative  and  type 
men  of  antiquity.  They  were  fathers  and  founders 
of  races,  carrying  their  own  image  and  superscrip- 
tion to  all  generations. 

To  this  class  of  venerable  ancients,  Abraham  be- 
longed. He  was  the  father  and  founder  of  a  pecu- 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  89 

liar  and  wonderful  people.  His  children,  the  Jews, 
can  not  be  mistaken.  They  are  still,  always  have 
been,  and,  doubtless,  always  will  be,  strongly  Abra- 
hamic.  Without  controversy,  .they  all  have  Abraham 
for  their  father.  And  notwithstanding  the  present 
dispersion  and  national  degradation  of  the  Jews,  it 
must  be  confessed  that  Abraham,  their  great  father, 
stands  apart  from  all  the  rest  of  the  national  patri- 
archs of  antiquity,  as  the  noblest  specimen  of  a  type- 
progenitor  and  nation-founder  of  which  the  nations 
can  boast.  His  name,  as  connected  with  the  world's 
history,  is  more  sacred  and  venerable  than  that  of 
any  other  ancient  Patriarch  known  to  us. 

Now,  the  grand  characteristic  which  distinguishes 
him  above  all  other  national  patriarchs  of  the  an- 
cient times,  is  that  which  is  contained  in  the  remark- 
able declaration  concerning  him,  quoted  at  the  head 
of  this  chapter.  This  characteristic  embraced  in  it 
two  fundamental  particulars :  (1,)  True  obedience 
to  God  as  supreme;  and  (2,)  True  judgment  and 
justice  toward  man.  "And  they  shall  keep  the  way 
of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment."  These 
were  fundamental  elements  in  Abraham's  character, 
distinguishing  and  exalting  him  above  all  other  na- 
tion-builders of  antiquity.  On  the  basis  of  these 
elements,  he  established  his  household.  The  mem- 
bers thereof,  with  himself  at  the  head,  kept  "  the 
way  of  the  Lord,"  and  did  justice  and  judgment. 

The  true  righteousness  of  obedience  to  the  Lord 
Jehovah  of  hosts,  and  of  upright  judgment  and  just- 
ice to  man,  was  the  Abrahamic  peculiarity,  and  by 
8 


90  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

it  he,  as  ancestral  head,  and  his  posterity  after  him, 
were  to  be  distinguished  from  all  other  families  and 
nations.  True  Jehovah  worship  and  love,  and  true 
man  worship  and  love,  were  thus  to  be,  from  the 
beginning,  the  peculiarity  of  the  Abrahamic  race. 
This  was  the  element  of  separation,  this  the  mark 
of  distinction,  this  the  type  of  character  which  dis- 
tinguished the  great  Patriarch  himself,  and  which 
was  to  descend  in  the  line  of  his  posterity,  and  ulti- 
mately, by  spiritual  succession,  to  reach  all  the  fam- 
ilies of  the  earth. 

Abraham's  Jehovah  worship  was  the  true  religion, 
testified  to  as  such  by  both  Jesus  Christ  and  his 
Apostles.  Abraham's  "justice  to  man"  was  the  true 
philanthropy,  including  all  proper  liberty  to  all,  and 
excluding  all  oppression,  and  all  wrong.  Thus  RE- 
LIGION and  LIBERTY  constituted  the  Abrahamic  bap- 
tism, the  Abrahamic  mark  of  separation,  the  national 
characteristic  of  the  Abrahamic  stock. 

If,  now,  from  the  point  in  the  history  of  the  ages 
where  we  stand  to  day,  we  undertake  to  trace  back 
true  religion  and  liberty  among  men,  the  clue,  with 
various  windings  through  broad  and  beautiful  val- 
leys, along  narrow  defiles,  steep,  rugged,  and  fright- 
ful, over  hilltops,  radiant  with  light  and  glory,  and 
across  dark  and  gloomy  swamps,  foul  with  the  stench 
of  every  poison,  will  lead  us,  at  last,  to  the  door  of 
the  tent  of  him,  of  whom  God  had  said  of  old,  "  For 
I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment."  Or,  if  we 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  91 

go  back  to  Abraham's  day,  and  take  up  the  Abra- 
hamic  faith,  embracing  obedience  to  God,  and  justice 
to  man,  and  trace  it  downward '  through  the  ages, 
we  shall  find  it  branching  out  among  the  nations, 
and  including  all  the  true  religion  and  liberty  that 
has  prevailed  on  the  earth.  And  so  we  shall  find 
the  germ,  the  root-stock,  of  all  earth's  true  religion 
and  liberty  to  have  been  the  faith  described  in  our 
text-verse,  which  dwell  in  father  Abraham.  This 
faith  had  in  it  the  power  of  an  endless  life.  It  was 
destined  to  expand,  and  finally  fill  the  earth. 

In  the  wise  administration  of  the  Divine  Govern- 
ment, this  Abrahamic  germ  of  true  religion  and  lib- 
erty, this  Abrahamic  faith,  embracing  in  it  that 
pure  worship  of  the  living  God,  which  seeks  truly 
to  keep  the  righteous  way  of  the  Lord,  and  that  true 
brotherhood  love,  which  seeks  to  do  justice  to  indi- 
vidual men  in  the  deep  sense  of  absolute  truth,  was 
destined  to  descend  for  many  generations,  almost 
exclusively  in  the  line  of  the  natural  descendants  of 
Abraham,  the  Jews.  But  the  living  power  of  this 
root-stock  of  godliness  and  justice  kept  idolatry  and 
slavery  out  of  the  great  Patriarch's  own  household  ; 
it  kept  these  great  iniquities,  except  as  occasional 
crimes,  out  of  the  Hebrew  family  and  nation,  in  all 
after  generations.  Neither  of  these  abominations 
could  possibly  exist  in  conjunction  with  the  Abra- 
hamic godliness  and  justice.  They  never  did. 

But  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  in  the  history  of  other 
nations,  families,  and  races,  that,  as  they  multiplied 
and  advanced,  they  degenerated  into  gross  and  hope- 


92  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

less  idolatry,  and  within  them  the  worst  forms  of 
oppression  prevailed,  as  established  practices.  In 
them,  the  poor,  and  the  weak,  the  common  people, 
were  degraded,  oppressed,  and  enslaved  by  the  rich 
and  powerful,  and  for  them  there  was  no  help.  So- 
ciety became  broken  up  into  castes  and  aristocra- 
cies, powers  and  laws  fell  into  the  hands  of  the 
higher  and  stronger,  who  were  not  slow  to  compel 
the  lower  and  weaker  to  toil  for  them,  and  serve 
them.  But,  in  Israel,  the  power  of  the  Abrahamic 
faith  of  godliness  and  justice  secured  the  true  wor- 
ship, and  personal  liberty  and  manhood  for  every 
individual  soul.'  It  protected  the  poor  and  weak, 
and  demanded  justice  for  them,  and  so  made  slavery 
impossible. 

In  process  of  time,  Messiah  came,  and  the  true 
kingdom  of  Israel,  with  its  Abrahamic  faith  of  god- 
liness and  justice,  was  taken  from  the  Jews,  and 
given  to  the  Gentiles.  According  to  the  Scriptures, 
the  Abrahamic  faith  was  identical  with  the  Gospel 
faith.  The  Abrahamic  faith,  then,  illuminated  and 
enlarged  by  the  coming  and  teachings  of  Christ, 
transferred  to  the  Gentiles,  made  a  new  spiritual 
Israel  among  the  Gentiles,  identical  in  faith  and  sub- 
stance with  spiritual  Israel  of  old,  among  the  Jews. 
So,  then,  Abraham  "  is  the  father  of  us  all,"  who 
"keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,"  and  "do  justice  and 
judgment"  to  men,  under  both  dispensations,  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles.  And  as  the  living  power  of  the 
Abrahamic  faith,  the  root-stock  of  godliness  and 
justice  among  men,  kept  slavery  and  idolatry,  ex- 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  93 

cept  as  occasional  crimes,  out  of  the  Hebrew  family 
and  nation,  so  the  expansion  of  this  faith  in  the 
gospel  of  Jesus,  Abraham's  son,  is  destined  to  de- 
stroy slavery  and  idolatry  everywhere,  and  ulti- 
mately to  bring  the  entire  race,  wandering  Jews 
and  benighted  Gentiles,  round  back  to  the  true 
Abrahamic  worship,  love,  and  justice.  When  Jeho- 
vah said,  "I  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his 
children  and  his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall 
keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judg- 
ment, that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that 
which  he  hath  spoken  of  him,"  Abraham  was  con- 
stituted the  spiritual  father  of  all  the  true  Jehovah 
worshipers,  man  lovers,  and  free  peoples  under 
heaven.  At  the  same  time,  the  decree  went  forth 
out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord,  that  true  religion  and 
true  liberty  should  live  and  flourish  on  the  earth. 
The  foundations  of  an  everlasting  kingdom  were  then 
laid,  having  this  seal  that  the  word  of  the  Lord 
standeth  sure.  Kingdoms  and  thrones  may  be  sub- 
verted and  disappear,  old  earths  and  old  heavens 
may  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  the  sun  may  be 
darkened,  and  the  moon  turned  into  blood,  but  the 
true  Abrahamic,  Apostolic,  Puritanic,  Evangelical 
faith,  obedience  to  God,  and  justice  to  man,  can  never 
be  shaken.  This  great  and  sublime  pledge  God  gave 
to  Abraham,  and  to  the  universe,  when  he  uttered 
the  declaration  and  prophecy  which  we  are  now  con- 
templating. 

Obedience  to  God  and  justice  to  man,  that  is  the 
Abrahamic  creed,  that  is  the  Gospel  creed,  that  is 


94  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

the  creed  of  the  universal  kingdom  of  God.  It  was 
this  creed,  adopted  and  practiced  in  Abraham's  fam- 
ily, that  kept  idolatry  and  slavery  out  of  it,  and 
true  worship  and  freedom  in  it,  and  so  made  it  a 
model,  not  only  for  the  Jewish  nation,  but  for  the 
world;  this  same  creed,  everywhere  underlying  the 
Mosaic  code,  kept  idolatry  and  slavery  out  of  the 
Jewish  nation ;  and  this  same  creed,  by  virtue  of  its 
own  spiritual  life-power,  keeps  slavery  out  of  the 
circle  of  a  pure  gospel  faith  and  practice  everywhere. 
And  when  this  sublime  Abrahamic,  evangelical,  rad- 
ically anti-slavery  creed,  has  accomplished  its  whole 
great  mission  on  the  earth,  the  mission  which  it 
began  in  Abraham  and  his  household,  the  gospel 
prayer,  "Thy  kingdom  come,"  will  be  answered. 
Idolatry  and  slavery  will  no  more  curse  the  earth. 
The  blessing  of  Abraham  will  then  be  upon  all  the 
families  of  the  earth. 

Such,  as  we  understand  it,  is  the  import,  and  such 
the  breadth  of  this  testimony  in  regard  to  Abraham. 
Religion  and  liberty  had  a  grand  exemplification  in 
the  old  Patriarch's  household,  such  as  made  it  fit 
that  he  should  be  made  the  divinely  constituted 
father  and  founder,  not  merely  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
but  of  that  more  peculiar,  holier,  and  more  royal 
nation,  whose  badge  of  citizenship  is  supreme  love 
to  God,  and  equal  and  impartial  love  to  man. 

And  we  here  record  our  solemn  protest  as  against 
a  great  wrong,  against  that  stupendous  perversion 
of  the  Divine  Word,  which  makes  Abraham,  the 
divinely  constituted  father  and  founder  of  earth's 


PATRIARCHAL   SERVITUDE.  95 

true  religion  and  liberty,  the  father  and  founder  of 
earth's  most  tremendous  villainy,  chattel  slavery. 
"We  devoutly  hope  there  is  repentance  and  forgive- 
ness somewhere  for  those  who  have  handled  the 
Word  of  God  so  badly  as  to  have  "added"  this  ruin- 
ous perversion  "to  the  things  that  are  written"  in 
the  Holy  Book. 


CHAPTER  X. 

ANCIENT    DARKNESS    AND    MODERN    LIGHT — MODERN 
DARKNESS   AND   ANCIENT   LIGHT. 

A  CERTAIN  writer  has  remarked  that  it  has  been 
aptly  said  that  "if  Abraham  were  now  living  among 
us  he  would  be  put  in  the  penitentiary  for  bigamy." 
Possibly.  But  if  the  shade  of  the  old  Patriarch 
should  now  stand  forth  in  our  presence,  and  give  his 
testimony  concerning  modern  affairs,  we  venture  the 
opinion  that  he  would  not  hesitate  to  testify  that 
"  if  certain  slaveholding  doctors  of  theology  in  young 
America  had  lived  in  his  day,  they  would  have  been 
stoned  to  death  for  stealing  men  and  women  and 
making  merchandise  of  them." 

And  when  we  pertly  ask,  "  Shall  we  go  back  to 
study  morality  in  the  twilight  of  the  Patriarchal 
age  ? "  we  fancy  we  can  hear  the  rebound  of  the 
stern  echo  from  their  venerable  souls,  "  Shall  we,  to 
whom  Jehovah  spoke  face  to  face,  go  forward  to  the 


96  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

twilight  darkness  of  American  slaveholding  ethics, 
to  be  instructed  in  morality?  and  to  learn  true  just- 
ice and  judgment? 


CHAPTER  XI. 

CONDITION   OF   THE  JEWS   IN  EGYPT. 

WE  devote  a  section  to  this  topic  chiefly  for  the 
purpose  of  correcting  a  very  general  mistake.  This 
mistake  has  been  corrected  repeatedly  by  others; 
but  it  still  prevails,  and  the  correction  needs  to  be 
repeated.  It  is  very  common  for  people  to  suppose 
that  the  condition  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt,  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  was  that  of  chattel  slavery.  This  suppos- 
ition arises,  probably,  from  the  fact  that  the  terms 
employed  to  describe  the  oppressions  of  the  Hebrews 
in  Egypt,  are  such  as  have  been  commonly  under- 
stood to  refer  to  a  state  of  chattel  slavery.  The 
mischief  of  this  supposition  lies  in  the  fact  that 
people  conclude  that  if  the  Hebrews  were  slaves  in 
Egypt,  then,  when  the  language  which  is  applied  to 
them  in  describing  their  condition  is  applied  to 
others,  they  also  must  have  been  slaves.  The  reason- 
ing is,  that  if  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  in  the  days 
of  Moses,  were  slaves,  and  so  were  called  "  bondmen," 
then  all  others  who  are  called  "bondmen"  were 
slaves. 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  97 

But  all  this  is  an  entire  mistake,  as  has  been 
most  abundantly  and  conclusively  shown  by  Mr- 
Weld,  Mr.  Barnes,  and  others,  The  Hebrews  were 
not  chattel  slaves  in  Egypt,  but  oppressed  freemen : 
and  hence  all  the  language  that  is  applied  to  them 
is  such  as  can  be  properly  applied  to  freemen.  The 
use  of  such  language  is  nowhere  evidence  that  those 
to  whom  it  was  applied  were  chattel  slaves. 

We  quote,  mostly  from  the  writers  alluded  to 
above,  the  following  brief  summary  of  considera- 
tions which  prove,  beyond  all  contradiction,  that 
the  Hebrews  were  not  held  as  chattel  slaves  by  the 
Egyptians. 

(1.)  The  Israelites  were  not  dispersed  among  the 
families  of  Egypt,  but  formed  a  separate  community. 
Gen.  Ivi:  34;  Ex.  viii:  22,24;  ix:  26;  x:23;  xi:  7; 
iv:  29;  ii:  9;  xvi:  22;  xvii:  5;  vi:  14.  (2.)  They 
had  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  land  of  Goshen, 
the  best  part  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  Gen.  Iv:  18; 
Ivii:  6,  11,  27;  Ex.  viii:  22;  ix:  26;  xii:  4.  Go- 
shen must  have  been  at  a  considerable  distance  from 
those  parts  of  Egypt  inhabited  by  the  Egyptians. 
(3.)  They  lived  in  permanent  dwellings.  These  were 
houses  and  not  tents.  In  Ex.  xii:  7,  22,  the  two 
side  posts,  and  the  upper  door  posts,  and  the  lintel 
of  the  houses  are  mentioned.  Each  family  seems 
to  have  occupied  a  house  by  itself.  Acts  vii:  20. 
(4.)  They  owned  "flocks  and  herds"  and  "very 
much  cattle."  Ex.  xii :  4,  6,  32,  37,  38.  From  the 
fact  that  "every  man"  was  commanded  to  kill  either 
a  lamb  or  a  kid,  one  year  old,  for  the  Passover,  be- 
9 


98  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

fore  the  people  left  Egypt,  we  infer  that  even  the 
poorest  of  Israelites  owned  a  flock  either  of  sheep 
or  goats.  (5.)  They  had  their  own  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  preserved  their  tribe  and  family  divisions, 
and  their  internal  organization  throughout,  though 
still  a  province  of  Egypt  and  tributary  to  it.  Ex. 
ii:  1;  xii:  19,  21;  vi:  14,  25;  v:  19;  iii:  16,  18. 
(6.)  They  had,  in  considerable  measure,  the  disposal  of 
their  own  time.  Ex.  -  iii :  16,  18 ;  xii :  6 ;  ii :  9 ;  iv : 
27, 29-31.  (7.)  They  were  all  armed.  Ex.  xxxii :  27. 
(8.)  All  the  females  seem  to  have  known  something 
of  domestic  refinements.  They  were  familiar  with 
instruments  of  music,  and  skilled  in  the  working  of 
fine  fabrics,  Ex.  xv :  20 ;  xxxv :  25,  26 ;  and  both 
males  and  females  were  able  to  read  and  write. 
Deut.  xi :  18-20 ;  xvii :  19 ;  xxvii :  3.  (9.)  Service 
seems  to  have  been  exacted  from  none  but  adult 
males.  Nothing  is  said  from  which  the  bond  serv- 
ice of  females  could  be  inferred ;  the  hiding  of  Moses 
three  months  by  his  mother,  and  the  payment  of 
wages  to  her  by  Pharaoh's  daughter,  go  against  such 
a  supposition.  Ex.  ii:  29.  (10.)  Their  food  was 
abundant,  and  of  great  variety.  Ex.  xii:  15,  39. 

"Probably  but  a  small  portion  of  the  people  were 
in  the  service  of  the  Egyptians  at  any  one  time. 
Ex.  ix:  26.  Besides,  when  Eastern  nations  em- 
ployed tributaries,  it  was  as  now,  in  the  use  of  the 
levy,  requiring  them  to  furnish  a  given  quota,  drafted 
off  periodically,  so  that  comparatively  but  a  small 
portion  of  the  nation  would  be  absent  at  any  one 
time.  The  adult  males  of  the  Israelites  were  proba- 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  99 

bly  divided  into  companies,  which  relieved  each 
other  at  stated  intervals  of  weeks  or  months." 

The  above  presents,  beyond  all  question,  a  correct 
view  of  the  condition  of  the  Israelites  in  Egypt  in 
the  time  of  Moses.  They  were  tributaries  to  the 
Egyptian  government ;  and  a  tax,  in  labor  or  other- 
wise, was  laid  upon  them  for  the  benefit  of  that 
government,  which  was  increased  till  it  became  in- 
supportable. It  was  in  this  way,  and  not  as  chattel 
slaves,  that  they  were  oppressed  in, Egypt.  They 
were  a  nation  of  unchattelized  freemen  oppressed 
with  a  grievous  burden  of  governmental  exactions, 
unrighteous,  indeed,  and  designed  to  crush  them. 
Now  this  oppression,  which  never  reached  the  extent 
of  chattel  slavery,  is  everywhere  condemned  in  the 
Bible  in  the  strongest  language.  The  Israelites  are 
frequently  referred  to  it,  as  an  example  of  warning 
to  them,  that  they  should  not  vex  or  oppress  the 
stranger.  Terrible  judgments  were  visited  upon  the 
Egyptians  for  practicing  it.  How,  then,  can  we 
believe,  that  a  few  months  later,  the  same  Almighty 
Jehovah,  who  whelmed  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea 
for  their  wickedness  in  thus  oppressing  the  Israelites, 
expressly  permitted,  and  positively  ordered  them, 
to  reduce  to  a  worse  bondage,  whomsoever  of  the 
heathen  they  might  please  ?  But  this  we  must 
believe  and  swallow,  if  the  sort  of  servitude  which 
is  regulated  in  the  Mosaic  code  was  chattel  slavery. 
Mrff&votTo  \  God  forbid  ! 

And  our  belief  can  not  be  much  better  if  it  was 
any  sort  of  oppressive  servitude.  Nay,  verily.  The 


100  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   HE-EXAMINED. 

overthrow  of  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts  in  the  waters  of 
the  Red  Sea  is  a  divine  guarantee  that  no  provision 
will  be  found  in  the  Mosaic  code  for  any  sort  of 
oppression  or  trespass  upon  manhood  rights.  The 
wrath  that  gleamed  forth  from  the  awful  cloud  back 
upon  the  Egyptian  hosts  as  they  approached  the 
fatal  shore,  is  the  same  wrath  which  the  Word  of 
God  everywhere  thunders  across  the  track  of  all 
oppression. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    MOSAIC    CODE. 

Introduction. 

MOSES,  and  the  Jews  of  his  day,  were  the  direct 
and  acknowledged  descendants  of  the  old  Jewish 
Patriarchs.  Their  customs,  habits,  and  modes  of 
thought  were,  of  course,  strongly  Abrahamic  and 
Patriarchal.  The  family  model  which  they  had  re- 
ceived from  their  fathers,  with  their  great  father, 
Abraham,  at  the  head,  was  the  compound  Patri- 
archal household.  The  legislation  of  Moses  was 
designed,  of  course,  to  meet  and  match  this  family 
arrangement,  and  the  state  of  society  growing  out 
of  it.  This  legislation  will  meet  and  match  no  other 
form  of  society. 

Let  it  be  especially  noticed  here,  that  no  other 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  101 

classes  of  servants  are  recognized  in  the  Mosaic 
code  than  those  which  are  alluded  to  in  the  Patri- 
archal history.  The  legislation  of  Moses  was  for 
the  Hebrew  tribe,  with  its  Abrahamic  family  con- 
stitution. It  sought  to  regulate  the  free  Jewish 
household,  without  disturbing  the  Patriarchal  ten- 
dency which  still  existed  among  the  people.  That 
tendency,  which  was  rather  cherished  than  other- 
wise, by  Moses,  though  considerably  limited  and 
circumscribed,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  to  a  large 
household,  with  all  the  members  closely  allied  and 
devoted  to  the  head  or  Patriarch  thereof.  These 
several  classes  of  attaches,  called  servants,  which 
made  up  the  Patriarchal  household,  were  all  recog- 
nized, as  we  shall  see,  in  the  Mosaic  legislation,  and 
their  rights  carefully  provided  for  and  guarded. 


102  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

PARTICULAR  EXAMINATION  OF  VARIOUS   PASSAGES  IN 
THE  MOSAIC  CODE  WHICH  REFER  TO  SERVITUDE. 

SEC.  1. — Circumstances  in  which  the  Mosaic  Code 
was  given. 

THE  Mosaic  code  was  given  immediately  after  the 
departure  of  the  Jews  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  We 
use  the  term,  immediately,  here  with  some  latitude, 
meaning  by  it  that  the  giving  of  the  law  was  the 
next  important  thing  in  the  history  of  the  Jews 
after  their  departure  from  Egypt.  It  is  not  essential 
to  this  discussion  whether  this  period  be  considered 
forty  years  or  less.  It  is  manifest  that  immediately 
after  the  deliverance  from  Egypt,  and  the  passage  of 
the  Red  Sea,  the  giving  of  the  law  commenced.  As 
the  Jews  were  when  they  left  the  eastern  shore  of  the 
Red  Sea,  so  were  they  when  they  received  the  Mo- 
saic code.  There  was  no  intervening  chapter  of 
history  to  change  or  modify  their  condition,  socially, 
individually,  or  collectively. 

Now  it  is  manifest  that  they  came  out  of  Egypt 
a  free  people ;  free  as  a  nation,  and  free  as  individ- 
uals. Indeed,  there  is  not  the  least  shadow  of  evi- 
dence that  there  was  any  approach  to  chattel  slavery 
among  them.  It  is  very  plain  from  the  history,  that 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  103 

the  Israelites,  Jacob  and  his  family,  went  from  Ca- 
naan down  into  Egypt  a  band  of  unchattelized 
freemen.  It  is  as  plain  that  they  neither  had,  nor 
could  have  had,  slaves,  while  they  were  in  Egypt. 
It  is  preposterous  to  suppose  that  they  either  made 
slaves  of  the  Egyptians,  or  captured  people  from 
surrounding  nations,  and  made  slaves  of  them  in 
Egypt.  It  is,  therefore,  certain,  that  they  carried 
no  slaves  with  them  up  out  of  Egypt.  They  had 
not  been  slaves  to  the  Egyptians,  and  they  were  not 
slaves  to  each  other.  Indeed,  one  of  the  leading 
purposes  which  God  had  in  view  in  their  oppression 
in  Egypt  was,  to  teach  them  "the  heart  of  the 
stranger ; "  and  to  beget  in  them  a  heart  to  feel  for 
the  poor  and  oppressed,  and  to  deliver  them  effectu- 
ally and  fully  from  the  spirit  of  all  oppression.  And 
it  is  especially  worthy  of  notice,  that,  in  their  sub- 
sequent history,  God  often  appeals  to  their  afflictions 
in  Egypt  as  a  reason  why  they  should  "love  the 
stranger"  as  themselves,  and  take  care  not  to  "vex 
or  oppress  "  him.  It  is  preposterous  in  the  extreme, 
to  suppose  that,  in  the  midst  of  these  circumstances, 
they  came  forth  from  their  Egyptian  house  of  bond- 
age a  nation  of  slaveholders.  And  it  seems  to  us 
passing  strange  that  Mr.  Barnes,  as  well  as  other 
writers,  after  proving  that  the  words  "servant,'1 
"buy,"  and  "sell,"  and  other  similar  words  which 
are  used  in  the  Patriarchal  history  and  Mosaic  code, 
determine  nothing  as  to  the  existence  of  slavery, 
these  terms  being  just  as  applicable  to  free  servants 
as  to  slave  servants,  should  adopt,  as  the  basis  of  all 


104  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

his  reasonings  on  the  subject  of  Old  Testament  serv- 
itude, the  baseless  and  absurd  assumption  that  the 
Israelites  were  led  of  God  up  out  of  Egypt  with  a 
gang  of  slaves  at  their  heels.  The  truth  is,  they 
came  out  of  Egypt  a  nation  of  freemen,  with  Hebrew 
customs  and  usages,  and  as  Hebrew  families ;  for 
their  families  were  not  broken  up  in  Egypt.  They 
came  out  both  as  free,  and  as  free  Hebrews.  They 
did  not  depart  from  Egypt  as  Greeks,  or  Komans, 
or  Persians,  or  Anglo-Saxons,  or  Frenchmen,  but  as 
ancient  Hebrews,  with  Jewish  feelings,  customs,  and 
peculiarities.  They  brought  the  Hebrew  family  with 
them.  As  such,  without  slavery,  Moses  found  them 
on  the  eastern  shore  of  the  Red  Sea;  as  such,  they 
submitted  themselves  to  his  leadership,  and,  as  such 
he,  under  divine  direction,  made  laws  for  them. 
What  Moses  found  of  servitude  among  the  Israelites 
to  regulate  and  to  legislate  about,  was  not  chattel 
slavery,  but  the  free,  righteous  servitude  of  the 
Abrahamic  household,  descended  in  the  Jewish  fam- 
ilies. With  this  fact,  as  we  shall  see,  the  entire 
Mosaic  code  perfectly  agrees. 

SEC.  2. — Institution  of  the  Passover. — Ex.  xii :  43-47. 

"And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses  and  Aaron,  This 
is  the  ordinance  of  the  passover:  there  shall  no 
stranger  eat  thereof:  But  every  man's  servant  that 
is  bought  for  money,  when  thou  hast  circumcised 
him,  then  shall  he  eat  thereof.  A  foreigner  and  a 
hired  servant  shall  not  eat  thereof.  In  one  house 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  105 

shall  it  be  eaten;  thou  shalt  not  carry  forth  aught 
of  the  flesh  abroad  out  of  the  house;  neither  shall 
ye  break  a  bone  thereof.  All  the  congregation  of 
Israel  shall  keep  it." 

These  verses  are  found  in  the  chapter  which  gives 
an  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Passover.  The 
object  of  that  account  is  to  explain  the  ordinance  of 
the  Passover,  and  give"  directions  for  its  observance. 
The  passage  which  we  have  quoted  is  not  a  statute 
respecting  servitude,  and  is  here  examined  only  be- 
cause it  contains  incidental  allusion  to  the  different 
elements  of  the  Hebrew  household.  It  is  worthy  of 
notice,  that,  as  in  the  account  of  the  institution  of 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  the  different  elements  of  the 
Hebrew  family  are  alluded  to,  not  to  describe  them, 
but  for  the  purpose  of  defining  and  limiting  the  ob- 
servance of  the  Passover;  and  that  just  as  if  these 
constitutive  elements  of  the  family  were  well  under- 
derstood.  We  have  here,  as  in  the  other  case,  the 
family  proper,  consisting  of  the  children  proper,  and 
the  other  children  "born  in  the  house,"  the  "bought- 
with-money"  servant,  and,  in  addition,  the  "hired 
servant."  The  hired  servant  did  not  belong  to  the 
household,  being  only  a  temporary  laborer,  having 
his  home  somewhere  else ;  hence  he  is  not  mentioned 
at  all  in  connection  with  the  rite  of  circumcision, 
and  hence  he  is  excluded  from  the  Passover. 

It  is  further  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  feast  of 
the  Passover  was  to  be  eaten  by  families.  The  lamb 
was  not  to  be  divided  to  be  eaten  in  different  houses. 


106  BIBLE   SERVITUDE  RE-EXAMINED. 

As  the  Chaldee  has  it,  "  In  one  society  shall  ye  eat 
it."  For  the  sake  of  social  fellowship,  and  to  make 
the  idea  of  the  family  prominent,  each  family,  as  a 
family,  were  to  eat  the  Passover  together.  Hence 
it  took  in  all  the  bona-fide  members  of  the  house- 
hold. The  "  bought-with-money  "  servant  was  a  fix- 
ture of  the  heusehold,  for  the  time  being,  and  so 
belonged  to  it,  as  part  and  parcel  of  it.  The  phrase, 
"  bought  with  money,"  as  applied  to  him  in  Mosaic 
diction,  has  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  his  being  a 
slave.  That  ancient  phraseology  only  shows  how  he 
became  attached  to  the  household.  As  we  have 
already  seen,  this  was  a  common  mode,  in  Patriarchal 
times,  of  attaching  servants  to  the  household.  This 
phrase,  in  its  origin  and  use  in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage, related  to  freemen,  and  a  state  of  freedom, 
and  not  at  all  to  slaves,  and  a  state  of  slavery.  No 
ancient  Israelite  would  think  for  a  moment  of  refer- 
ring it  to  slaves.  It  has  come  to  be  referred  to 
slaves  only  by  lugging  back  the  sense  of  modern 
usage,  and  botching  it  on  to  the  honest  ancient  He- 
brew. And  so  the  Word  of  God  is  perverted  and 
carried  over  to  the  abominable  service  of  giving  its 
holy  sanction  to  chattel  slavery.  But  let  the  reader 
note  and  remember,  that  we  find  no  other  elements 
belonging  to  the  Hebrew  household  mentioned  any- 
where in  the  Mosaic  writings,  than  these  which  be- 
longed to  the  Abrahamic  household.  In  that  house- 
hold, as  we  have  seen,  these  elements  must  have 
been  free  elements.  They  are  nowhere  described  as 
being  any  thing  else.  They  belonged  to  the  Abra- 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  107 

hamic  household ;  they  belonged  to  the  Hebrew 
family  afterward;  and  to  them  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion everywhere  corresponds. 

SEC.  3. — Hebrew  Servants. 

Ex.  xxi :  2-6 — "  If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew  servant, 
six  years  shall  he  serve :  and  in  the  seventh  he  shall 
go  out  free  for  nothingr  If  he  came  in  by  himself, 
he  shall  go  out  by  himself :  if  he  were  married,  then 
his  wife  shall  go  out  with  him.  If  his  master  have 
given  him  a  wife,  and  she  have  borne  him  sons  or 
daughters ;  the  wife  and  her  children  shall  be  her 
master's,  and  he  shall  go  out  by  himself.  And  if 
the  servant  shall  plainly  say,  I  love  my  master, 
my  wife,  and  my  children ;  I  will  not  go  out  free : 
Then  his  master  shall  bring  him  unto  the  judges ; 
he  shall  also  bring  him  to  the  door  or  unto  the 
door-post ;  and  his  master  shall  bore  his  ear  through 
with  an  awl;  and  he  shall  serve  him  forever." 

In  regard  to  this  statute,  observe  as  follows : 

1.  In  form,  language,  and  spirit,  it  is  a  direct  and 
positive  statute. 

2.  There  is  a  partial  exposition  of  this  statute  by 
the  great  Jewish  Lawgiver  himself,  where  it  is  re- 
peated  in   Deuteronomy,  which  throws  great  light 
upon  it.     This  rehearsal  is  as  follows:     Deut.  xv : 
12-18 — "  And  if  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man,  or  a 
Hebrew  woman,  be  sold  unto  thee,  and  serve  thee 
six  years;  then  in  the  seventh  year  thou  sh'alt  let 


108  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

him  go  free  from  thee.  And  when  thou  sendest  him 
out  free  from  thee,  thou  shalt  not  let  him  go  away 
empty :  Thou  shalt  furnish  him  liberally  out  of  thy 
flock,  and  out  of  thy  floor,  and  out  of  thy  wine-press : 
of  that  wherewith  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  blessed 
thee  thou  shalt  give  unto  him.  And  thou  shalt  re- 
member that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in  the  land  of 
Egypt,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  redeemed  thee :  there- 
fore I  command  thee  this  thing  to-day.  And  it 
shall  be,  if  he  say  unto  thee,  I  will  not  go  away 
from  thee;  because  he  loveth  thee  and  thine  house, 
because  he  is  well  with  thee;  Then  thou  shalt  take 
an  awl  and  thrust  it  through  his  ear  unto  the  door, 
and  he  shall  be  thy  servant  forever.  And  also  unto 
thy  maid-servant  thou  shalt  do  likewise.  It  shall 
not  seem  hard  unto  thee,  when  thou  sendest  him 
away  free  from  thee;  for  he  hath  been  worth  a 
double  hired  servant  to  thee,  in  serving  thee  six 
years :  and  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  bless  thee  in  all 
that  thou  doest." 

3.  It  is  manifest  from  these  two  passages,  taken 
together,  as  referring  to  one  and  the  same  statute, 
as  they  evidently  do,  that  this  statute,  in  regard  to 
Hebrew  servants,  included  alike   in   its  provisions 
both  male  and  female  servants.     The  recapitulation 
in  Deuteronomy,  where  express  mention  is  made  of 
female  servants,  as  well  as  of  male  servants,  makes 
this  positively  certain. 

4.  It  is  further  evident,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  Hebrew  servants,  such  as  this  statute  con- 
templates, would  generally,  if  not  universally,  belong 


MOSAIC  SERVITUDE.  109 

to  a  class  of  people  who  were  otherwise  destitute  of 
any  home.  Those  who  had  homes  of  their  own 
would  not  need,  and  would  not  be  likely,  to  engage 
as  servants,  except  as  "  hired  servants." 

This  is  also  clearly  evident  from  the  regulations 
in  regard  to  the  Passover.  The  Passover  was  pecul- 
iarly a  family  institution.  The  mere  temporary, 
"  hired  servant,"  who  was  supposed  to  have  a  home 
somewhere  else,  was  forbidden  to  eat  of  it  in  the 
family  of  his  employer.  The  servant  "bought  with 
money,"  such  as  was  the  servant  contemplated  in 
this  statute  in  regard  to  Hebrew  servants,  which  we 
are  now  considering,  having  no  other  home,  was  to 
eat  of  it  in  the  family  in  which  he  was  servant. 
Hebrew  servants  that  were  "  bought,"  then,  under 
the  provisions  of  this  statute,  were  generally  if  not 
universally,  servants  that  were  destitute  of  a  home. 

5.  It  is  also  plain  that,  in  the  contract  for  serv- 
ice contemplated  in  this  statute,  the  Hebrew  servant 
was   received   and   incorporated   into  the  family  as 
part   and  parcel  of  it.      This,  indeed,  as  we   have 
already  seen,  was  an  important  and  leading  element 
in   this    engagement   between   master  and  servant. 
It  was  an  alliance  of  the  servant  with  the  household, 
to  become  a  member  of  it.     It  was  more  than  simple 
hire.     It  was  a  contract  for  household  membership. 

6.  The  word   "  buy,"  in  these  passages,  has  its 
usual  sense,   when   applied   to  the   engagement  of 
servants.     It  refers  simply  to  the  money  stipulation 
between  the  householder  and  the  homeless   person, 
by  which  the  alliance  of  the  latter  with  the  former, 


110  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

as  a  household  member,  was  effected.  It  has  no 
allusion  whatever  to  property  ownership  in  the  per- 
son of  the  servant.  It  refers  to  the  bargain  made 
between  the  householder  and  the  servant,  in  which 
the  former  paid  money  to  the  latter,  and  by  which 
the  latter  became  a  member  of  the  household,  to  do 
service,  and  be  under  its  control.  In  the  repetition 
and  expansion  of  this  statute,  in  Deu$,  chapter  xv, 
this  is  clearly  implied.  In  the  twelfth  verse  the 
phraseology  is,  "  And  if  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man, 
or  a  Hebrew  woman  be  sold  unto  thee."  The  verb 
used  here,  and  translated  "be  sold,"  is  translated, 
in  Lev.  xxy :  47,  "sell  himself."  A  similar  trans- 
lation of  this  same  verb  may  be  found  in  Isa.  1 :  1, 
and  lii :  3,  and  in  Jer.  xxxiv :  14.  That  the  serv- 
lant  himself  received  the  money  paid,  is  also  con- 
clusively manifest  from  Lev.  xxv:  51,  52;  from 
which  it  is  also  manifest  that  it  was  the  custom  for 
the  servant  to  receive  his  pay  for  the  whole  six 
years'  service  in  advance,  at  the  time  the  contract 
was  made.  The  servant,  therefore,  as  a  free  man, 
made  his  part  of  the  bargain,  and,  as  a  free  man, 
entered  upon  the  fulfillment  of  the  contract :  his  pay 
he  received  in  advance.  The  householder,  also,  as 
a  free  man,  and  as  with  a  free  man,  made  his  part  of 
the  bargain,  and  fulfilled  it  accordingly.  There  was 
no  compulsion  on  either  side,  nor  any  other  element 
of  slavery. 

7.  All  this  agrees  perfectly  with  the  peculiar 
constitution  of  the  Jewish  household,  and  the  cus- 
toms of  Jewish  society.  The  contract  between  'the 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  Ill 

Hebrew  servant  and  his  employer  was  not  exactly 
like  a  modern  bargain  between  a  laborer  and  his 
employer.  It  was,  by  no  means,  so  exclusively  a 
mere,  dry,  money  transaction.  It  had  in  it  more  of 
the  friendly,  neighborly,  social,  family  element.  It 
was  a  contract  for  service :  it  was  also  a  contract  for 
home  and  its  attendant  privileges  and  blessings. 

8.  Hence  the  engagement  was  extended  through 
several  years.     Attachment  to  the  household  in  the 
Abrahamic,  Jewish  sense,  must  have  some  measure 
of  permanency  connected  with  it,  in  order  to  be  of 
any  value  as  a  household  connection.     It  must  ex- 
tend through  several  years,  in  order  to  be  really 
valuable  to  either  servant  or  master.     Otherwise,  it 
would  be  a  mere  temporary  matter,  as  in  the  case  of 
"hired  servants."     The  arrangement  contemplated 
in  this  statute  was  a  very  different  thing  from  that 
which  pertained  to  "hired  servants."     "  Hired  serv- 
ants "  did  not  properly  belong  to  the  household,  but 
were  merely  engaged  to  do  temporary  service,  with 
a  home  somewhere  else :  or,  at  least,  without  a  home 
in  the  household  where  they  were  employed.     The 
servants   provided   for   in    this   statute   constituted 
another  class  entirely.     They  were,  by  the  opening 
contract,  incorporated  into  the  household  as  part  and 
parcel  of  it.     This  would  demand  some  measure  of 
permanency  in  the  arrangement.     Hence  the  exten- 
sion of  the  time  to  six  years :  the  shortest  allowable 
period  consistent  with  the  nature  of  the  case. 

9.  But,  for  several  reasons,  such  an  arrangement 
needed  some  limitation.     First,  in  order  to  give  all 


112  BIBLE  SEEVITUDE  RE-EXAMINED. 

servants  an  opportunity  to  establish  a  home  of  their 
own.  It  was  a  favorite  object  with  the  Mosaic  code, 
and  the  whole  Jewish  Dispensation,  to  elevate  every 
man  and  procure  for  him  a  home  People  that  were 
destitute  of  such  home  could  find  a  temporary,  par- 
tial home,  under  this  statute  for  servitude.  To  give 
them  an  opportunity  of  establishing  an  independent 
one  of  their  own,  this  servitude  arrangement  for  a 
home  was  limited  to  six  years :  at  the  end  of  which 
it  was  caused  to  expire,  in  order  to  give  the  servant 
a  chance  to  try  for  himself,  or  renew  the  servitude 
arrangement,  as  might  please  him  best.  The  best 
arrangement  for  every  man  is  to  have  a  home  of  his 
own:  next  to  that,  is  a  home  in  some  other  good 
home.  This  latter  was  the  thing  contemplated  and 
sought  after  in  this  statute,  for  such  persons  as  were 
not  able  to  secure  for  themselves  the  former.  The 
time  was  extended  to  six  years,  in  order  to  make  the 
connection  as  home-like  as  possible:  it  was  limited 
to  six  years,  in  order  to  give  every  servant  an  oppor- 
tunity to  make  a  home  for  himself. 

Secondly,  this  arrangement  was  limited,  lest  it 
should  run  into  slavery,  or  some  other  form  of  op- 
pression. This  limitation  most  effectually  forestalled 
all  slavery  as  to  Hebrew  servants  among  the  Jews. 
Again,  it  is  also  very  probable  that  this  statute  had 
another  limitation.  It  is  altogether  probable  that 
the  servant  might  redeem  himself  at  any  time,  by  a 
mutual  agreement  with  the  master,  and  on  refunding 
the  purchase-money.  By  express  statute,  (Lev.  xxv : 
47-49,)  the  Hebrew  servant  sold  to  "a  sojourner  or 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  113 

stranger"   might   be  thus  redeemed,  and  the  pre-")  - 
sumption  is,  that  all  Hebrew  servants,  under  this 
statute  in  Ex.  xxi :  2-6,  had  the  same  privilege. 

10.  But  if  the  servant  found  that  his  connection 
with  the  household  was  likely  to  be  better  for  him 
and  his  family  than  any  home  which  he  could  estab- 
lish for  himself,  this  statute  provided  (Ex.  xxi:  5-6; 
Deut.  xv :  16-17,)  for  permanent  alliance,  according 
to  the  old  Abrahamic  custom.  "If  he  say  unto 
thee,  I  will  not  go  away  from  thee;  because  he  lov- 
eth  thee  and  thine  house,  because  he  is  well  with 
thee;  Then  thou  shalt  take  an  awl,  and  thrust  it 
through  his  ear  unto  the  door,  and  he  shall  be  thy 
servant  forever." 

In  Patriarchal  times,  it  is  manifest  that  the  alli- 
ance with  the  household  to  render  service  and  be 
subject  to  it,  to  be  a  member  of  it  and  have  a  home 
in  it,  was  usually  a  permanent  alliance ;  for  life,  and 
even  for  future  generations.  This  tendency  still  re- 
mained in  the  Jewish  nation.  Hence  the  need  of 
the  special  provisions  made  in  this  statute,  for  per- 
manent connection  with  the  household.  In  all  cases 
this  connection  was  entirely  voluntary,  and  on  the 
basis  of  freedom.  It  made  no"  slavery,  and  contem- 
plated none.  It  was  a  permanent  membership  con- 
nection with  the  household,  to  be  under  its  control 
and  do  service  for  it,  much  like  that  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  household.  This  was  the  Jewish  idea  of 
servitude.  This  was  Paul's  idea  of  it,  as  he  expressly 
tells  us.  "  Now  I  say,  that  the  heir,  as  long  as  he 
is  a  child,  differeth  nothing  from  a  servant." — (Gal. 


114  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

iv:  1.)  But  this  permanent  alliance  was  strongly 
guarded  in  several  ways.  (1.)  It  was  entered  upon 
only  after  a  long  and  thorough  trial.  (2.)  The  en- 
gagement must  be  made  in  a  public  manner,  and  a 
public  record  made  of  it.  (3.)  The  servant  lost  no 
rights  of  citizenship  by  this  transaction,  and  hence 
had  equal  protection  from  the  laws  of  the  land  with 
k^the  master. 

11.  If  the  contract  was  with  married  servants, 
that  is,  with  a  man-servant  and  his  wife,  at  the 
end  of  six  years  they  were  to  go  out  free  together. 
And  in  order  that  they  might  be  assisted,  much 
as  parents  assist  their  children  in  starting  in  life, 
in  establishing  a  home  for  themselves,  they  were 
to  be  "  furnished  "  "  liberally  "  by  the  master,  "  out 
of  his  flock,"  and  "out  of  his  floor,"  and  "out  of 
his  wine-press." — Deut.   xv:  14.      This  was  to  be 
done  cheerfully. — Verse  18.    That  is,  they  were  to  be 
Bent  out  from  the  household,  where  they  had  so  long 
found  a  home,  with  paternal  sympathy  and  help,  to 
build  a  homes,  for  themselves.     How  beautifully  Pa- 
triarchal, generous,  man-loving,  and  Christian !  in- 
finitely further  removed  from  slavery  than  the  poles 
are  from  each  other. 

12.  And  the  proviso  in  tha-fourth  verse  of  the 
statute,  as  laid  down  in  Ex.  xxi^j  is  in  perfect  har- 
mony with  all  the  rest.     "  If  His  master  have  given 
him  a  wife,  and  she  have  borne  him  sons  or  daugh- 
ters ;  the  wife  and  her  children  shall  be  her  master's, 
and  he  shall  go  out  by \  himself."     It  was  the  uni- 
versal custom  in  the  days  of  .the  Patriarchs,  and  for 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  115 

many  generations  following,  that  not  even  a  wife 
could  be  transferred  from  one  household  to  another 
without  compensation.  The  usages  of  the  times 
compelled  every  man  to  "purchase"  and  pay  for 
his  wife.  In  the  case  before  us,  the  master  is  sup- 
posed to  "give"  or  furnish  the  servant  a  wife:  one 
that  already  belonged  to  his  household ;  and  hence 
furnished  without  compensation.  The  woman  al- 
ready belonged  to  the  master's  household,  and  the 
giving  of  her  to  the  servant  to  be  his  wife  did  not 
transfer  her  to  any  other  household.  She  belonged 
to  the  master's  household  still,  as  did  the  servant 
who  was  her  husband. 

Now,  it  is  manifest,  from  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  that  she  would  be  thus  "  given  "  by  the 
master  only  on  supposition  that  the  servant  would 
remain  a  permanent  member  of  the  household.  But 
if,  contrary  to  this  expectation,  he  should  determine 
to  go  out  by  himself,  at  the  end  of  his  six  years' 
term  of  service,  the  fixed  usages  of  society,  and  hence 
justice  to  the  master,  would  not  permit  him  to  take 
his  wife  with  him  (and  of  course  the  children  would 
remain  with  the  mother,)  without  the  usual  arrange- 
ments for  transfer.  But  his  going  out  free  by  him- 
self, that  is,  alone,  would,  by  no  means,  separate  him 
from  his  wife  in  the  sense  of  divorce.  Such  depar- 
ture from  the  household  would  not  in  the  least 
disturb  the  relation  of  husband  and  wife.  It  would 
separate  them  only  as  to  home  and  household.  And 
even  this  inconvenience  could  be  easily  remedied. 

It  could  always  be  remedied,  (1,)  by  the  servant's 


116  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

consenting  to  remain  permanently  a  member  of  the 
household,  a  privilege  which  he  always  had  a  right 
to  claim,  and  the  claiming  of  which  would  manifestly 
be  implied  in  his  marriage^  contract :  (2,)  by  his 
paying  the  usual  dowry  and  for  whatever  of  unex- 
pired  service  might  remain  due  to  the  master  from 
the  wife :  (3,)  by  his  waiting  till  his  wife  herself 
should  be  free,  provided  she  was  a  six  years'  servant, 
and  not  a  permanent  servant.  It  could  always  be 
forestalled  and  avoided  by  the  servant's  refusing  to 
form  any  such  matrimonial  engagement.  The  pre- 
sumption therefore  is,  that  the  separation  alluded  to 
would  usually  be  the  result  of  perverseness  on  the 
part  of  the  servant.  His  connection  with  his  wife 
would  be  formed  in  view  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  and  if  he  was  an  honest  and  honorable  man, 
need  not  involve  the  necessity  of  any  separation  at 
all.  His  master  would  give  him  a  wife  in  order  to 
bind  him  to  the  household :  his  acceptance  would  be 
his  consent  to  his  master's  object. 

This  statute,  therefore,  either  in  its  spirit  or  in 
the  letter  thereof,  either  in  its  general  scope  or  in 
its  particular  provisions,  does  not  lie  in  the  same 
hemisphere  with  chattel  slavery.  There  is  not  in  it 
any  sort  of  slavery.  Its  provisions  are  wise,  be- 
nevolent, and  on  the  basis  of  the  fullest  individual 
freedom.  Hence  its  direct,  positive,  and  permanent 
character.  It  is  not  a  statute  to  permit  an  evil  till 
some  other  and  different  legislation  should  work  to 
remove  it,  but  a  positive  law  authorizing  and  estab- 
lishing forever,  on  principles  of  righteousness  and 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  117 

truth,  that  which  it  concerns.  Its  object  was  to 
secure  personal  freedom,  protect  individual  manhood 
rights,  and  promote  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 
all.  All  its  provisions  were  wise  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  end.'  .  , 

SEC.  4. — Special  Case  of  Contract  for  Service  and 
Anticipated  Marriage. 

Ex.  xxi :  7-11— '*•"  And  if  a  man  sell  his  daughter 
to  l*o  a  maid-servant,  she  shall  not  go  out  as  the 
men-servants  do.  If  she  please  not  her  master, 
who  hath  betrothed  her  to  himself,  then  shall  he  let 
her  be  redeemed :  to  sell  her  unto  a  strange  nation 
he  shall  have  no  power,  seeing  he  hath  dealt  deceit- 
fully with  her.  And  if  he  have  betrothed  her  unto 
his  son,  he  shall  deal  with  her  after  the  manner  of 
daughters.  If  he  take  him  another  wife,  her  food, 
her  raiment,  and  her  duty  of  marriage,  shall  he  not 
diminish.  And  if  he  do  not  these  three  unto  her, 
then  shall  she  go  out  free  without  money." 

1.  The  key  to  the  exposition  of  this  somewhat 
difficult  passage  of  Scripture  is  to  be  found  in  its 
speciality.  From  the  peculiar  constitution  of  the 
Jewish  household,  and  of  Jewish  society,  cases  might 
arise  in  which  it  might  be  desirable  for  the  father 
and  his  family  to  seek  a  place  for  his  daughter  in 
some  other  household,  to  do  service  for  it  and  be  a 
member  of  it,  with  the  expressed  or  implied  under- 
standing that  she  should,  at  some  future  time,  be- 


118  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   HE-EXAMINED. 

come  a  wife  in  it.  This  would  constitute  a  very 
peculiar  and  special  case,  requiring  a  special  statute, 
and  special  safeguards.  This  is  the  case  provided 
for  in  the  statute  before  us :  a  case  of  contract  for 
service  and  anticipated  marriage. 

2.  It  is  manifest,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that 
instances  of  this  sort  would  not  be  very  numerous. 
In  ordinary  circumstances,  fathers  would  not  "sell" 
their  daughters  for  service  and  anticipated  marriage. 
The  usual  practice  was  to  "  sell "  daughters  in  actual 
marriage.    Daughters  would,  much  more  commonly, 
remain  in  the  paternal  homestead  till  transferred  to 
another  household  by  actual  marriage.     Neverthe- 
less, the  father  might,  sometimes,  find  it  desirable 
to  transfer  his  daughter  to  another  household,  to  be 
a  member  of  it,  and  do  service  in  it,  if  he  had  good 
reason  to  believe  that  the  change  would  result  in  a 
matrimonial  alliance  with  the  lord  of  the  house,  or 
with  his  son.     To  provide  for,  and  guard  such  cases, 
was  the  object  of  this  statute. 

3.  Since,  therefore,  this,  was  a  case  of  contract  for 
service  and  anticipated  marriage,  it  comes  under  the 
rules   both   for   service   and    marriage.      This   fact 
brings  in  the  father's  agency.     This  agency  is  to  be 
understood,  of  course,  only  in  the  voluntary  sense, 
according  to  the  prevailing  usages  of  the  times  and 
of  Jewish  society.     It  implied  no  compulsion  any- 
where.    Modern  usage  makes  the  father  give  away 
his  daughter  in  marriage,  and  a  dowry  along  with 
her.     Ancient  usage    made   the   father  "sell"  his 
daughter  and  take  the  dowry.     The  former  gives 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  119 

the  money,  or  pay ;  the  latter  took  it.  Neither  the 
modern  "  giving,"  nor  the  ancient  "  selling,"  implies 
any  compulsion  on  the  part  of  the  father.  The  sell- 
ing of  the  daughter,  in  the  case  before  us,  as  alluded 
to  in  the  seventh  verse,  was  precisely  as  usual  when 
a  father  sold  his  daughter  in  marriage,  and  had  not 
the  remotest  allusion  whatever  to  property  possession 
in  the  person  of  the  daughter,  on  the  part  of  either 
the  father  or  the  master.  It  was  a  selling  for  mar- 
riage at  some  future  time,  and  for  service  and  mem- 
bership in  the  household  meanwhile.  Neither  of 
these  contracts  among  the  Jews  ever  had  the  re- 
motest connection  with  chattel  slavery.  Freedom 
was  always  the  basis  of  both.  When  Boaz  "pur- 
chased" Ruth,  the  great-grandmother  of  David,  and 
ancestral  mother  of  Messiah,  it  was  not  as  a  slave, 
or  to  be  a  slave,  but  as  a  free  woman,  to  be  a  wife. 
Such  purchase  was  a  part  of  the  customary  court- 
ship, and  was  conducted  on  principles  of  the  most 
generous  and  honorable  gallantry.  It  was  entirely 
voluntary  on  all  sides,  and  implied  no  compulsion 
anywhere.  The  fact  that  the  father  "sells"  his 
daughter,  in  the  two-fold  contract  for  service  and 
marriage,  has  not  the  remotest  allusion  to  a  state 
of  slavery. 

4.  This  statute  treats  of  the  "going  out"  of  this 
particular  class  of  servants  referred  to.  "  And  if  a 
man  sell  his  daughter  to  be  a  maid-servant,  she  shall 
not  go  out  as  the  men-servants  do."  This  is  the 
subject  of  the  statute.  It  treats  of  the  going  out  of 
this  particular  class  of  maid-servants. 


120  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

The  contrast  here  is  not  between  maid-servants 
and  men-servants,  as  the  reader  might  at  first  sup- 
pose; but  manifestly  between  this  particular  class 
of  maid-servants,  and  the  six  years'  man-servants 
and  maid-servants  alluded  to  in  the  preceding  stat- 
ute. The  phrase,  "  she  shall  not  go  out  as  the  men- 
servants  do,"  plainly  refers  back  to  the  servants 
spoken  of  in  the  preceding  statute.  But  this  stat- 
ute, as  we  have  before  seen,  includes  both  men- 
servants  and  maid-servants.  Inasmuch,  therefore, 
as  the  Hebrew  word  for  "  men-servants "  in  the 
phrase,  "she  shall  not  go  out  as  the  men-servants 
do,"  is  a  general  term,  and  may  include  both  men- 
servants  and  maid-servants,  it  is  clear  that  the  con- 
trast here  is  between  this  particular  class  of  maid- 
servants, and  the  men-servants  and  maid-servants 
described  and  legislated  for  in  the  preceding  statute. 
These  were  six  years'  Hebrew  servants,  both  male 
and  female.  They  were  to  "go  out"  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  six  years'  term  of  service ;  that  was  the 
way  in  which  they  should  "go  out."  At  that  time, 
they  were  to  go  out  free,  liberally  furnished.  Now, 
the  daughter,  transferred  according  to  this  special 
statute  we  are  now  considering,  should  not  go  out 
in  this  way.  She  should  not  be  subject  to  the  rules 
laid  down  for  common  servants.  The  contract,  in 
her  case,  embraced  also  the  marriage  contract.  The 
daughter  thus  allied  to  the  household  should  not  be 
sent  away  as  the  common  six  years'  servants  were. 
Her  term  of  service  was  expected  to  lose  itself  in 
the  conjugal  relation,  either  with  the  master,  or  with 


MOSAIC   SEKVITTJDE.  121 

his  son.  In  case  of  any  failure  in  this — in  case  the 
master  should  not  fix  upon  her  for  his  wife,  (Hebrew,) 
nor  yet  his  son,  according  to  the  original  expectation, 
and  in  case  she  was  not  treated  as  an  espoused  wife, 
she  should  not  be  sent  away  as  the  common  servants 
were.  Different  rules  should  apply  to  her  case. 

Before  examining  these  several  regulations  separ- 
ately in  order,  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that  they  all 
look  to  the  protection  of  the  maid-servant.  The 
design  of  this  whole  statute  plainly  was  to  guard  and 
protect  her  rights.  This  it  does  effectually.  It  fully 
protects  her  rights  as  a  free  woman. 

1.  It  is  manifestly  implied  in  this  statute,  that  it 
was  the  expectation,  in  the  premises,  that  the  master 
would  ultimately  marry  the  maid-servant,  and  she 
would  become   his  wife.      "If  she   please  not  her 
master  who  hath  betrothen  her  unto  himself."     If 
the  master  should  act  in  good  faith,  and  actually 
make  her  his  wife,  well.     The  servant  would  be  lost 
in  the  wife,  and  there  would  be  no  "going  out" 
at  all. 

2.  But  "if  she  please  not  her  master,"  as  soon  as 
it  appears  that  the  master  does  not  fix  upon  her  for 
a  wife,  and  thus  there  is  a  failure  to  consummate 
the  principal  object  of  the  original  contract,  namely, 
marriage,   then,   the   master  "shall  let,"   or  cause 
"her  to  be  redeemed."     If  the  master  should  fail  in 
this  part  of  his  obligation,  then  the  maid-servant 
should  "go  out"  by  redemption.     This  is  the  first 
regulation  in  this  statute  in  regard  to  her  going 
forth  from  the  household  of  the  master  who  had 

11 


122  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

"bought"  her.  If  he  failed  in  the  marriage  con- 
tract, this  failure  should  forfeit  all  right  to  retain 
her  as  a  mere  maid-servant ;  nor  should  he  have  any 
power  to  transfer  her,  either  for  service  or  for  mar- 
riage, to  any  other  family,  for  this  is  clearly  the 
sense  of  the  word  translated  "nation"  in  this  eighth 
verse.  The  master  should  have  no  power  to  dispose 
of  her  to  any  one  else  for  a  wife,  for  the  purpose 
of  recovering  a  portion,  or  all,  of  the  dowry  which 
he  had  paid  for  her.  This  right  of  disposal  should 
continue  to  lie  exclusively  with  her  own  proper 
family. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  if  the  woman  should  be  be- 
trothed to  the  son  of  the  master,  in  anticipation  of 
marriage,  all  would  be  well.     In  this  case,  also,  the 
contract  for  service  would  lose  itself  in  the  marriage 
relation,  according  to  the  original  expectation,  and 
there  would  be  no  "going  out"  in  the  case.     As 
the  wife  of  the   son,  the  master  of  the  household 
should  treat  her  as  a  daughter.     "  He  "  should  "  deal 
with  her  after  the  manner  of  daughters." 

4.  But  if  there  should  be  a  failure  as  to  the  mar- 
riage contract  on  the  part  of  both  master  and  son, 
and  "another"  female   (the  Hebrew  does  not  say 
"  wife,")  should  be  taken  into  the  household,  as  she 
had  been  at  first,  with  a  view  to  anticipated  mar- 
riage, thus  supplanting  her  entirely  in  this  respect, 
then,  if  she  is  either  not  able  to  accomplish  her  re- 
demption, or  does  not  desire  to  do  so,  she  shall  be 
treated  in  all  respects  as  an  honorable  member  of 
the  household.     Her  home  there,  her  food,  and  her 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  123 

clothing,  shall  be  faithfully  furnished.  The  Hebrew 
word,  translated  "her  duty  of  marriage,"  in  the 
tenth  verse,  is  probably  used  in  no  other  place  in 
the  Bible.*  The  root  from  which  it  is  derived 
means  "to  dwell;"  and  hence  the  signification, 
"dwelling-place,"  or  "home,"  which  we  give  to  it 
in  this  passage. 

We  object  to  the  sense  of  the  English  translation, 
as  being  unsuitable  to  the  passage.  All  the  pro- 
visions of  this  statute  respect  time  previous  to  mar- 
riage, and  refer  to  failure  in  the  marriage  part  of 
the  contract.  This  statute,  mark,  includes  simply 
the  case  of  the  daughter  sold  to  be  a  maid-servant, 
with  marriage  anticipated,  and  treats  of  her  "going 
out,"  or  release  from  the  household,  not  as  a  repu- 
diated wife,  but  as  a  maid-servant.  It  is  not  at  all 
a  case  of  divorce,  but  of  release  from  service,  when 
certain  conditions  have  transpired.  The  scope  of 
the  statute  clearly  locates  these  conditions  previous 
to  actual  marriage.  For  marriage  absorbs  the  serv- 
ice contract,  and  puts  an  end  to  all  going  out  as  a 
maid-servant.  All  departure  from  the  household, 
after  marriage,  must  be  as  a  repudiated  wife,  which 
is  a  matter  altogether  foreign  to  the  title  and  sub- 
ject of  this  statute.  First,  if  marriage  takes  place 
between  the  master  and  the  maid-servant,  of  course, 
there  is  to  be  no  departure.  Second,  if  the  master 
fails  as  to  the  marriage,  then  the  maid-servant  may 
go  out  from  the  household  and  its  service,  by  re- 

*  Some  suppose  that  this  same  word  occurs  in  Hos.  x :  10,  where  it  is  translated 
"furrow;"  margin,  " habitations." 


124  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

demption.  Third,  if  the  master  betroth  her  unto 
his  son,  she  is  to  be  in  the  household  as  a  daughter. 
Fourth,  if  the  master  "take  him  another,"  not  in 
actual  marriage,  but  as  the  first  was  taken,  to  dis- 
place her  so  far  as  anticipated  marriage  is  concerned, 
the  maid-servant,  instead  of  securing  her  redemp- 
tion, might  complete  her  service  contract,  if  she 
chose,  provided  she  should  be  furnished  with  food, 
and  raiment,  and  home,  that  is,  home  privileges,  as 
an  honorable  member  of  the  household. 

5.  But  if  these  should  be  diminished,  (verse  llth,) 
this  should  forfeit  all  claim  on  the  part  of  the  mas- 
ter, and  she  should  be  at  liberty  to  "go  out"  "free 
without  money,"  her  service  contract  being  cancelled 
without  the  payment  of  any  redemption  money  what- 
ever. As  a  maid-servant  released  from  obligation, 
by  the  failure  of  the  master  to  perform  his  part  of 
the  contract,  should  she  "go  out."  The  original 
contract  really  included  in  it  food,  raiment,  and 
home,  as  betrothed  wife  or  daughter :  failure  in  any 
of  these  particulars  should  release  the  maid-servant 
from  all  further  obligations.  Such  failure  would  be 
a  virtual  violation  of  the  whole  spirit  of  the  original 
contract,  which  neither  contemplated  nor  admitted 
of  any  degradation  of  the  maiden.  That  contract 
secured  for  her  an  honorable  transfer  from  the  pa- 
ternal home  to  another  household,  eventually  to 
become  the  wife  of  the  lord  thereof,  or  of  his  son. 

Now,  that  this  is  a  case  of  freedom,  and  not  of 
slavery,  is  sufficiently  manifest  on  the  very  face  of 
things. 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  125 

1.  It  is  perfectly  certain,  at  the  outset,  that  no 
Hebrew  father  would  ever  enter  into  such  an  ar- 
rangement as  this,  unless  both  father  and  daughter 
had  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  alliance  would  be 
for  the  advantage  of  the  daughter  and  her  family. 
The  "  seller,"  in  this  case,  is  a  Hebrew  father,  and 
not  a  Southern  slave-dealer.     The  arrangement  is 
that  of  a  Hebrew  father  for  his  beloved  daughter,  of 
the  stock  of  Abraham.     God  forbid  that  we  should 
for   a  moment   imagine   that   any  father  in  Israel 
should,  for  an  instant,  harbor  the  thought  of  con- 
signing his  own  daughter  to  the  condition  of  a  chat- 
tel slave!     Such  a  base  slander  upon  the  seed  of 
Abraham  finds  no  warrant  from  the  Sacred  Record, 
and  should  not  be  tolerated  for  a  single  moment. 

2.  There  is  a  total  want  of  all  positive  evidence 
in  this  statute,  that  a  state  of  slavery  was  contem- 
plated therein.     The  "  selling  "  implies  no  such  evi- 
dence :  the  being  "  a  maid-servant "  implies  no  such 

.evidence :  the  fact  of  redemption  from  service  im- 
plies no  such  evidence  :  the  going  out  free  without 
money  implies  no  such  evidence.  Not  one  particle 
of  such  evidence  can  be  found  in  this  whole  statute. 

3.  The  main,   if   not   the   whole   object   of   this 
statute,  was  to  protect  and  guard  the  rights  of  the 
maid-servant  as  a  free  woman.     This  protection  is 
totally  inconsistent  with  a  state  of  chattel  slavery. 
This  is  too  manifest  to  need  further  illustration  or 
proof. 

4.  It  may  be  noticed  further,  that  no  lower  social 
condition,  or  position,  is  contemplated  in  this  statute 


126  BIBLE   SEEVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

for  the  maid-servant  than  that  of  wife,  or  daughter. 
The  purchase  was  manifestly  with  a  view  to  mar- 
riage with  the  master  himself,  or  with  his  son. 
Failure  in  this  gave  her  immediate  liberty  to  return 
to  her  father's  house*  How  utterly  inconsistent  all 
this  is  with  a  state  of  slavery.  All  the  regulations 
of  this  statute  imply  freedom  and  equality ,^and  are 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  degradation  of  chattel 
slavery. 

Before  dismissing  this  subject,  it  should  be  noticed 
still  further,  that  the  honor  of  the  master  and  his 
family  would  always  be  pledged  in  behalf  of  the 
safety  and  welfare  of  the  maid-servant  in  question, 
just  as  is  the  case  in  similar  transactions  in  modern 
times.  Being  an  arrangement  between  freemen,  and 
having  to  do  with  the  most  sacred  relations  of  life, 
there  would,  after  all,  be  less  liability  to  abuse  than 
would,  at  first  sight,  appear.  We  are  not,  by  any 
means,  to  understand  either  that  the  father  would 
be  a  cold  and  hard-hearted  Shylock,  seeking  only  to 
make  gain  out  of  the  offspring  of  his  own  loins,  or 
that  the  master  (more  properly  family  head,)  would 
be  only  a  modern  slave-breeder,  or  a  Turkish  harem- 
master.  This  statute  refers  to,  and  contemplates 
nothing  of  the  kind.  It  has  reference  to  honest  and 
honorable  Hebrew  men  and  women,  and  was  designed 
to  guard  the  rights  of  the  weaker  party.  On  the 
side  of  that  weaker  party  would  be  both  this  special 
statute  of  protection,  and  every  sentiment  of  honor 
and  generosity  of  the  other  party. 

Finally,  let  it  be  observed,  that  a  true  and  con- 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  127 

sistent  exposition  of  this  statute  develops  neither 
slavery  nor  polygamy,  as  contained  or  provided  for 
in  it.  Both  of  these  things  have  been  diligently 
sought  after  in  it,  but  lo!  neither  of  them  is  any- 
where to  be  found.  The  object  of  the  statute  is  to 
provide  for  the  release  of  the  maid-servant  from, 
service,  in  case  of  failure  in  the  marriage  part  of 
the  contract.  This  is  expressly  stated  in  the  first 
verse  of  the  statute.  The  "  going  out "  is  a  going 
out  from  service,  when  the  marriage  alliance  failed. 
The  provisions  all  respect  time  previous  to  actual 
marriage,  and  look  simply  to  the  release  of  the 
maid-servant  from  service,  on  failure  in  duty  of  the 
other  party,  until  we  come  to  the  ambiguous  phrase 
"  duty  of  marriage."  Now,  it  is  very  harsh  and 
unnatural  indeed,  to  suppose  that  the  whole  drift  of 
the  statute  changes,  at  this  point,  from  a  statute  for 
the  release  of  the  abused  maid-servant  from  service 
to  a  statute  for  divorce  from  marriage.  As  already 
interpreted,  we  think  the  whole  statute  relates  to 
release  from  service,  and  that  there  is  nothing  in  it 
that  has  the  remotest  allusion  to  either  slavery  or 
polygamy. 

SEC.  5. — Sundry  Regulations  in  Regard  to  Serv- 
ants. 

Ex.  xxi :  20,  21 — "And  if  a  man  smite  his  serv- 
ant, or  his  maid,  with  a  rod,  and  he  die  under  his 
hand;  he  shall  be  surely  punished."  (Margin, 
avenged.}  "Notwithstanding,  if  he  continue  a  day 


128  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

or  two,  he  shall  not   be   punished :   for  he  is  his 
money." 

Two  things  are  enacted  in  this  passage,  both  of 
which  are  entirely  consistent  with  a  state  of  freedom 
and  equal  citizenship  on  the  part  of  the  servant: 
and  the  first  of  them  implies  the  fullest  equality  of 
the  servant  with  the  master,  as  to  manhood  rights. 

1.  If  a  man  should  smite  his  servant  to  death,  he 
should  be  punished,  or,  as  the  Hebrew  has  it,  be 
avenged.  What  this  punishment  was  to  be,  is  to  be 
learned  from  other  statutes.  "And  he  that  killeth 
any  man  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." — Lev.  xxiv : 
17.  This  settles  it,  beyond  all  dispute,  that  the 
murder  of  a  servant  was  to  be  punished  just  as  was 
the  murder  of  any  other  person. 

If  it  fye  asked  why  there  is  this  special  reference 
to  servants,  if  they  came  under  the  general  law  in 
regard  to  murder,  we  give  a  Yankee  answer,  by  re- 
ferring the  reader  to  the  fact  that  repetitions  of 
particular  statutes,  and  their  reference  to  special 
cases  and  particular  classes  of  persons,  are  very 
common  in  the  writings  of  Moses.  We  need  not  go 
far  to  find  examples.  In  the  Decalogue  we  have  the 
universal  statute,  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill." — Ex.  xx : 
13.  In  the  very  next  chapter  we  have  this  repeated 
in  another  form,  referring,  perhaps,  to  the  manner 
of  killing,  and  also  stating  the  penalty:  "He  that 
smiteth  a  man  so  that  he  die,  shall  be  surely  put  to 
death." — Ex.  xxi :  12.  A  few  verses,  below,  we 
have  the  particular  reference  to  servants,  in  the 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  129 

passage  we  are  examining.  In  Num.  xxxv:  16, 
this  same  law,  in  regard  to  murder,  is  further  par- 
ticularized in  this  form  :  "  If  he  smite  him  with  an 
instrument  of  iron,  so  that  he  die,  he  is  a  murderer : 
the  murderer  shall  surely  be  put  to  death."  A  little 
further  on,  in  the  same  chapter,  this  is  repeated  in 
the  universal  form  with  reference  to  the  evidence 
in  the  case:  "  Whoso  killeth  any  person,  the  mur- 
derer shall  be  put  to  "death,  by  the  mouth  of  wit- 
nesses." Now  the  design  of  these  repetitions  and 
particular  references  was  not  to  imply  that  there 
were  exceptions  to  this  law  in  regard  to  murder, 
but  to  cut  off  all  exceptions,  and  to  reiterate  the 
law  with  additional  solemnity  and  force.  He  that 
smites  a  servant  to  death,  for  example,  shall  surely 
be  punished :  as  surely  as  if  he  had  murdered  any 
other  man.  The  manhood  rights  of  the  servant 
shall  not  be  one  whit  less  sacred  than  those  of  the 
master,  or  any  other  man.  With  God,  in  his  right- 
eous judgments,  there  is  no  respect  of  persons. 
Surely  chattel  slavery  finds  no  special  countenance 
in  such  statutes  as  this. 

2.  "  Notwithstanding  if  he  continue  a  day  or  two, 
he  shall  not  be  punished : "  that  is,  as  a  murderer, 
the  presumption  then  being  that  the  master  did  not 
intend  to  kill  him.  Just  as  in  the  statute  in  the 
preceding  verses:  "If  men  strive  together,  and  one 
smite  another  with  a  stone,  or  with  his  fist,  and  he 
die  not,  but  keepeth  his  bed,  if  he  rise  again,  and 
walketh  abroad  upon  his  staff,  then  shall  he  that 
smote  him  be  quit : "  Quit  how  ?  and  to  what  extent  ? 


130  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

Plainly  quit  as  to  the  crime  of  murder,  but  not  quit 
as  to  all  blame.  The  presumption  would  be  that 
the  smiter  did  not  intend  to  kill.  But  this  would 
by  no  means  release  from  all  blame.  Whatever 
blame,  whatever  guilt,  whatever  mischief  might  be 
involved  in  the  case,  would  require  to  be  treated 
according  to  statutes  and  principles  applicable  to  the 
case.  "Breach  for.  breach,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for 
tooth,"  blemish  for  blemish.  The  smiter  should, 
also,  as  was  just,  make  up  for  any  pecuniary  loss 
that  might  result :  "  only  he  shall  pay  for  the  loss 
of  his  time,  and  shall  cause  him  to  be  thoroughly 
healed." 

Precisely  these  same  principles  should  hold  in 
regard  to  the  servant.  If  the  master  should  smite 
him  to  death,  he  should  be  punished  as  a  murderer. 
If  the  servant  should  continue  a  day  or  two,  the 
presumption  would  be  that  there  was  no  murderous 
intent,  and  the  master  should  be  quit  of  punishment 
as  a  murderer.  This  presumption  would  be  strength- 
ened by  the  fact  that  the  smiting  was  "  with  a  rod  " 
simply,  and  that  the  master  had  a  pecuniary  interest 
in  the  servant  which  he  would  lose  if  he  murdered 
him.  "  For  he  is  his  money."  We  have  before  seen 
that  the  Hebrew  servant  was  "the  money"  of  the 
master,  only  in  the  sense  of  voluntary  contract  for 
services  and  membership  in  the  household  of  the 
master.  The  pecuniary  loss,  if  the  servant  died, 
would  be  the  master's,  inasmuch  as  he  had  paid  for 
his  services  in  advance,  and  would  be  deprived  of 
those  services  by  the  death,  of  the  servant. 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  131 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  this  whole  statute 
which  degrades  the  servant  in  the  least ;  nothing  that 
conflicts  with  his  equal  manhood,  and  equal  citizen- 
ship in  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  with  the  master. 
This  whole  statute  contemplates,  him  solely  as  an 
equal  brother  man,  occupying,  for  the  time  being,  a 
subordinate  station.  No  principles  of  legal  treat- 
ment are  applied  to  him,  which  are  not  applied  to 
other  men.  Indeed,  "this  whole  statute  is  a  statute 
of  protection  for  the  servant.  It  guards  his  life  from 
fatal  harm,  as  the  Mosaic  code  guarded  the  lives  of 
all  men,  with  the  terrible  penalty  of  death. 

And  then,  a  few  verses  further  along,  it  was  en- 
acted that  any  serious  personal  injury  done  to  the 
servant  should  forfeit  all  claim  on  the  part  of  the 
master  to  further  services.  "And  if  a  man  smite 
the  eye  of  his  servant,  or  the  eye  of  his  maid,  that 
it  perish,  he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his  eye's  sake. 
And  if  he  smite  out  his  man-servant's  tooth,  or  his 
maid-servant's  tooth,  he  shall  let  him  go  free  for  his 
tooth's  sake."  This  statute  reveals  the  spirit — the 
kind  of  protection  which  the  Mosaic  code  extended 
to  the  servant.  ,It  carefully  guarded  all  his  rights, 
as  a  man,  an  equal  fellow-citizen ;  so  carefully  and 
sacredly  guarded  them,  that  the  word  servant  never 
came  to  have  a  degraded  sense  in  Bible  literature ; 
a  significant  fact,  which  all  pro-slavery  interpreters 
of  the  Bible  would  do  well  to  ponder. 

Ex.  xxi :  32 — "  If  the  ox  shall  push  a  man-serv- 
ant, or  a  maid-servant,  he  shall  give  unto  their 


132  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

master  thirty  shekels  of  silver,  and  the  ox  shall  be 
stoned." 

Inasmuch  as  the  services  of  the  servant,  by  mu- 
tual compact  and  just  equivalent  rendered,  belonged 
to  the  master,  and  hence  the  pecuniary  loss  would 
fall  upon  him,  it  was  but  simple  justice  that  the 
owner  of  the  ox  should  compensate  said  master. 
Here,  again,  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  acknowl- 
edged manhood,  freedom,  and  equal  citizenship  on 
the  part  of  the  servant.  This  statute  respects  only 
the  compensation  to  be  given  to  the  master  for  his 
pecuniary  loss  in  the  services  of  the  servant,  for 
which  he  had  before  paid.  The  other  parts  of  this 
statute  concerning  "an  ox  that  pusheth  or  goreth," 
were  to  be  applied  to  servants,  in  all  respects,  as  to 
other  men, 

Ex.  xxii :  3 — "  If  he  have  nothing,  then  he  shall 
be  sold  for  his  theft." 

This  is  the  case  of  the  thief  who  should  be  found 
destitute  of  means  by  which  to  make  "full  restitu- 
tion" for  his  theft.  It  was  the  law  -concerning  theft, 
that  the  thief  "  should  make  full  restitution  "  for  the 
wrong  committed.  If  he  "had  nothing"  with  which 
to  make  restitution,  then  he  should  be  sold  for  his 
theft. 

If,  now,  we  assume  that  he  was  to  be  sold  as  a 
chattel  slave,  it  will  be  very  easy  for  us  to  make 
this  a  case  of  slavery !  And  it  is  only  on  the  ground 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  133 

of  this  baseless  assumption  that  chattel  slavery  is 
found  in  this  statute. 

If  the  thief  was  sold  as  a  free  man,  to  do  service 
until  he  had  worked  out  "full  restitution"  for  the 
trespass  committed  against  his  neighbor  by  his  theft, 
as  was  manifestly  the  case,  this  statute  reveals  not 
the  faintest  glimmer  of  chattel  slavery.  A  small 
theft  would  require  a  shorter  term  of  service,  or, 
if  you  please,  servanfship ;  a  larger  theft,  a  longer 
period. 

This,  therefore,  was  a  wise  and  just  statute,  and 
trenched  upon  no  inalienable  rights  or  privileges. 
It  has  not  the  remotest  reference  to  chattel  slavery. 


134  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

FOREIGN   SERVANTS. 

Analysis  of  £ev.  xxv1  and  xxvi. 

THE  specific  legislation  of  the  Mosaic  code  in  re- 
gard to  foreign  servants,  is  very  brief,  being  all 
contained  in  two  verses  and  a  half,  found  in  the 
twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Leviticus.  This  short  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  has  suffered  many  things  at  the 
hands  of  various  interpreters.  It  will  be  our  object, 
in  part,  to  give  the  results  of  modern  investigation, 
hoping  thereby  to  present  the  true  meaning  and 
bearing  of  the  passage  in  question. 

The  twenty-fifth  and  twenty-sixth  chapters  of 
Leviticus  contain  an  unbroken  message  from  the. 
Lord  to  the  children  of  Israel.  The  twenty-fifth 
chapter  begins  with  this  declaration:  "And  the 
Lord  spake  unto  Moses  in  Mount  Sinai,  saying." 
The  message  following  is  continuous  and  unbroken 
till  we  reach  the  last  verse  of  the  twenty-sixth  chap- 
ter, which  is  this :  "  These  are  the  statutes,  and 
judgments,  and  laws,  which  the  Lord  made  between 
him  and  the  children  of  Israel  in  Mount  Sinai  by 
the  hand  of  Moses."  The  enactment  in  regard  to 
Hebrew  servants  occurs  near  the  middle  of  this  con- 
tinuous message. 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  135 

In  this  whole  message,  contained  in  theso  two 
chapters,  several  distinct  matters  are  considered. 
Some  of  these  are  closely  connected,  others  are  more 
remotely  related,  and  others,  still,  have  only  a  very 
distant  connection  with  each  other,  if  any  at  all. 
This  fact  needs  especially  to  be  borne  in  mind  in 
studying  the  whole  passage,  and  in  studying  partic- 
ular parts  of  it. 

.  The  following  analysis  will  illustrate  the  above 
remark,  and  help  to  exhibit  the  position  of  the  part 
that  refers  to  foreign  servants,  and  show  its  con- 
nections. 

The  first  subject  of  enactment  and  regulation  in 
this  message  is  the  sabbatic,  or  seventh  year.  This 
occupies  the  first  seven  verses  of  chapter  twenty- 
fifth. 

At  the  eighth  verse  the  Jubilee  is  introduced. 
This  was  to  occur  on  the  fiftieth  year,  and  was  to  be 
a  great  religious  festival  among  the  Jews.  The  fif- 
tieth was  to  be  a  sacred  year.  "Ye  shall  hallow  the 
fiftieth  year." — V.  10.  "  It  shall  be  holy  unto  you." 
— V.  12.  It  commenced  on  a  day  most  sacred  to  the 
Jews :  "  On  the  tenth  day  of  the  seventh  month,  in 
the  day  of  atonement.1'  The  great  object  of  the 
Jubilee  was  a  religious  one.  Of  its  whole  signifi- 
cance it  is  not  to  our  present  purpose  to  inquire. 

Now,  in  order  to  the  best  observance  of  this  fiftieth 
year,  as  a  great  religious  sabbath  for  all  the  land,  of 
peculiar  sacredness  and  significance,  several  special 
regulations  would  be  needed.  1.  Of  course  it  would 
need  to  be  a  year  of  rest  from  labor.  "  Ye  shall  not 


136  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

BOW,  neither  reap  that  which  groweth  of  itself  in  it, 
nor  gather  the  grapes  in  it  of  thy  vine  undressed." — 
V.  11.  2.  "  Liberty  should  be  proclaimed  through- 
out all  the  land  unto  all  the  inhabitants  thereof." — 
V.  9.  That  is,  there  should  be  such  a  finishing  up 
of  engagements  from  one  to  another,  such  a  settle- 
ment and  release  as  would  give  full  freedom  to  all 
the  people  to  observe  this  year,  as  a  sacred  sabbath 
year,  to  the  best  advantage.  This  wafe  not  a  pro- 
clamation for  the  emancipation  of  modern  slaves ;  for 
slaves  were  unknown  to  the  Jewish  commonwealth. 
(1.)  Every  man  should  return  to  his  paternal  estate. 
"  And  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his  possession." 
— V.  10.  (2.)  Every  man  should  return  to  his  home. 
"And  ye  shall  return  every  man  unto  his  family." — 
V.  10.  (3.)  All  debts  were  to  be  limited  by  the 
Jubilee. — V.  14-16.  Contracts  were  to  be  adjusted 
to  the  Jubilee,  and  so  regulated  as  to  terminate  at 
that  time.  Business  matters  would  hence  be  so 
settled  up  at  the  opening  of  the  Jubilee,  that  they 
would  not  disturb  the  best  observance  thereof.  (4.) 
As  always,  in  all  this  no  oppression  should  be  prac- 
ticed. "  Ye  shall  not  oppress  one  another." — V.  14, 
17.  The  institution  of  the  Jubilee  occupies  the 
chapter  from  the  8th  verse  to  the  17th  inclusive. 

From  verse  18th  onward  to  the  22d,  inclusive, 
further  particular  directions  are  given  in  regard  to 
the  seventh,  or  sabbatic  year.  In  these  verses  no 
allusion  is  made  to  the  Jubilee.  The  statute  ordain- 
ing the  Jubilee  ends  with  the  17th  verse. 

Pursuing  our  analysis  of  the  chapter,  we  notice 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  137 

that  the  next  section  of  the  chapter,  verses  23-34, 
contains  a  statute  in  regard  to  the  land.  "  The  land 
shall  not  be  sold  forever." — V.  23.  It  might  be 
"  sold,"  (or  mortgaged,  rather,)  however,  subject  to 
"  redemption."  "  In  all  the  land  of  your  possession 
ye  shall  grant  a  redemption." — V.  24.  But  if  no 
one  was  found  able  or  willing  to  redeem  it,  it  should 
revert  to  the  original  owner  at  the  Jubilee. — V.  28. 
This  regulation  in  regard  to  the  land  was  one  of  the 
organic  laws  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth.  The 
Jubilee  was  made  the  time  when  the  land  that  had 
been  "sold"  should  revert  to  the  original  owner. 
This  was  one  of  the  beautiful  and  happy  incidental 
arrangements  connected  with  this  great  sabbatic 
year.  But  it  should  be  observed  that  this  statute 
contained  in  these  verses  (23-34)  is  a  statute  con- 
cerning the  land,  and  not  a  statute  concerning  the 
Jubilee.  The  Jubilee  is  alluded  to  only  incidentally, 
as  the  time  when  the  land  should  revert  to  the  proper 
owner,  in  case  of  failure  to  redeem  it.  The  jubilee 
statute  proper  is  all  comprised  in  verses  8-17. 

Let  us  proceed.  Verses  35-38  contain  another 
distinct  topic  of  legislation,  in  which  there  is  no 
allusion  whatever  to  the  Jubilee.  The  spirit  of  this 
injunction  in  this  section  of  this  message  from  the 
Lord  to  the  children  of  Israel,  is  so  good  an  example 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  code  generally,  that  we 
can  not  forbear  quoting  it  entire :  35.  "  And  if  thy 
brother  be  waxen  poor,  and  fallen  into  decay  with 
thee;  [margin,  his  hand  faileth;]  then  thou  shalt 
relieve  [strengthen]  him :  yea,  though  he  be  a  stran- 
12 


138  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   KE-EXAMINED. 

ger  or  a  sojourner;  that  he  may  live  with  thee. 

36.  Take  thou  no  usury  of  him,  or  increase :  but  fear 
thy   God;   that  thy  brother   may  live   with   thee. 

37.  Thou  shalt  not  give  him  thy  money  upon  usury, 
nor  lend  him  thy  victuals  for  increase.     38.  I  am 
the  Lord  your  God,  which  brought  you  forth  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  to  give  you  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  to  be  your  God." 

"Fallen  in  decay:"  that  is,  "disabled  from  help- 
ing himself :  one  who  was  unable  to  help  himself,  as 
if  his  hand  were  shaking  with  the  palsy."  (Bush,  in 
loco.)  This,  then,  is  a  special  statute  or  injunction 
in  behalf  of  that  particular  class  of  persons,  who, 
through  bodily  infirmities,  old  age,  or  other  causes, 
should  become  poor,  and  unable  to  take  care  of  them- 
selves. Such  were  to  be  assisted  to  maintain  their 
standing  and  position  as  fellow-citizens  of  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel.  "  That  he  may  live  with  thee :" 
keep  his  place  and  maintain  himself  and  family. 
This  most  beneficent  injunction  is  enforced  with  a 
beautiful  and  affecting  allusion,  in  verse  38th,  to 
God's  authority,  and  his  great  goodness  to  them  in 
bringing  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  giving 
them  the  land  of  Canaan,  to  be  their  God.  A  fine 
example  this  of  the  application  of  the  great  law  of 
love  to  the  case  of  truly  needy  people. 

Proceeding  with  our  analysis  of  the  chapter,  we 
come,  next  in  order,  (verses  39-43,)  to  a  special  stat- 
ute in  regard  to  another  class  of  poor  families,  who, 
though  not  disabled,  should  find  it  difficult  to  sustain 
themselves,  and  keep  their  land  and  home.  A  man 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  139 

with  his  family  in  such  circumstances,  might  seek 
relief  by  "  selling  himself."  39.  "  And  if  thy  brother 
that  dwelleth  by  thee,  be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold, 
[or  sell  himself,]  unto  thee ;  thou  shalt  not  serve  thy- 
self with  him  with  the  service  of  a  servant,  (He- 
brew,) 40.  but  as  a  hired  servant  [hireling]  and  as 
a  sojourner  he  shall  be  with  thee,  and  shall  serve 
thee  unto  the  year  of  Jubilee :  41.  And  then  shall 
he  depart  from  thee,  both  he  and  his  children  with 
him,  and  shall  return  unto  his  own  family,  and 
unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers  shall  he  return. 
42.  For  they  are  my  servants,  which  I  brought 
forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  they  shall  not  be 
sold  with  the  sale  of  a  servant  (Hebrew).  43.  Thou 
shalt  not  rule  over  him  with  rigor;  but  shalt  fear 
thy  God." 

Observe,  in  regard  to  this  statute,  .that  it  refers 
definitely  and  exclusively  to  the  poor  man  who 
should  find  it  difficult  to  sustain  himself  and  his 
family,  though  not  disabled,  and  who  should  choose 
to  "sell  himself"  to  his  neighbor,  .to  be  his  servant, 
for  the  purpose  of  bettering  his  circumstances.  Any 
Jew,  from  the  king  on  the  throne  to  the  meanest 
subject,  might  "sell  himself,"  after  the  Jewish  man- 
ner of  "selling,"  to  his  neighbor,  to  be  his  servant, 
who  should  choose  to  do  so.  In  none  of  the  forms 
of  Hebrew  servitude  was  there  the  least  oppression, 
injustice,  unrighteousness,  or  impropriety.  Any 
man  might,  if  he  chose,  be  a  hired  servant,  a  six 
years'  servant,  or  a  forever  servant. 

In  the  case  of  the  poor  man,  referred  to  in  the 


140  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

statute  before  us,  who,  instead  of  maintaining  his 
own  home  and  engaging  as  a  hired  servant,  should 
prefer  to  unite  himself  to  his  neighbor's  household 
after  the  manner  of  the  common  six  years'  servant, 
some  special  regulations  would  be  needed.  "Thou 
shalt  not  serve  thyself  with  him  with  the  service  of 
a  servant,  [common  six  years'  servant,]  but  as  a 
hired  servant,  [hireling,]  and  as  a  sojourner  he  shall 
be  with  thee."  That  is,  although,  to  relieve  his 
poverty,  he  should  sell  himself,  and  receive  the  pay 
in  advance,  just  as  did  the  common,  or  six  years' 
servant,  yet  his  relation  to  the  household  should  be 
altogether  temporary,  and  only  like  that  of  the  hired 
servant,  or  sojourner.  His  own  household  should 
not  be  broken  up  and  merged  in  that  of  his  em- 
ployer, as  was  the  case  with  the  common,  or  six 
years'  servant.  It  would  manifestly  be  very  trying, 
and  oppressive  even,  for  a  man,  on  account  of 
poverty,  to  break  up  his  own  household  and  incor- 
porate himself  into  his  neighbor's  household,  like  a 
six  years'  servant.  This,  therefore,  was  kindly  for- 
bidden. His  own  family  standing  should  remain, 
though  he  was  joined,  for  the  time  being,  with  an- 
other family.  He  should  still  be  recognized  as  a 
separate  household,  in  the  observance  of  the  Pass- 
over and  other  religious  feasts,  and  in  his  standing 
as  a  Hebrew  citizen. 

Again,  such  a  state  of  dependence  as  this  would 
need  to  come  to  an  end  at  the  sounding  of  the  Ju- 
bilee trumpet. — V.  40,  41.  In  order  to  the  best 
and  happiest  observance  of  the  great  sabbatic  year 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  141 

of  Jubilee,  the  man  and  liis  family  should  resume 
their  standing  as  an  independent  household.  The 
presumption  and  expectation  in  such  cases  would 
be,  that  the  assistance  derived  from  this  temporary 
service  to  his  neighbor  would  enable  him  to  sus- 
tain himself,  and  maintain  this  standing  afterward. 
This  "selling  of  himself"  to  his  neighbor  for  the 
time  being,  was  simply  the  resort  of  a  poor  man, 
able  to  work,  and  thus  help  himself,  in  order  to 
better  his  circumstances.  Such  cases  would  occur, 
of  course,  as  they  do  among  all  peoples,  in  all  ages. 
This  statute  was  designed  to  restrict  such  arrange- 
ments, and  prevent  their  breaking  up  the  household, 
a  most  sacred  thing  in  the  Mosaic  economy.  "And 
shall  return  unto  his  own  family,  and  unto  the  pos- 
session of  his  fathers  shall  he  return,  both  he  and 
his  children  with  him." 

Notice  further,  in  regard  to  this  statute,  that  the 
idea  of  "bondage,"  which  crops  out  in  our  English 
translation  of  the  39th  verse,  "Thou  shalt  not  com- 
pel him  to  serve  as  a  bond-servant,"  is  altogether  a 
gloss  of  the  translators.  The  Hebrew  yields  no  such 
idea.  The  word  translated  "  bond-servant""  is  the 
common  word  for  servant,  and  the  same  word  that 
is  used  to  designate  Hebrew  servants  in  Ex.  xxi: 
2-6.  The  contrast  in  this  statute  is  not  at  all  be- 
tween Jews  and  Gentile,  but  between  the  common 
servant  and  the  hired  servant.  This  is  expressly 
stated  in  verses  39  and  40.  Neither  of  these  classes 
of  servants  were  bond-servants  in  any  degraded  or 
oppressive  sense. 


142  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

Observe,  too,  that  this  statute  throughout  relates 
to  a  particular  class  of  persons.  It  is  manifest,  from 
the  allusion  to  the  "stranger"  and  "sojourner,"  in 
the  35th  verse  of  this  chapter,  that  the  persons  re- 
ferred to  might  be  either  Jews  or  Gentiles.  It  is 
the  particular  case  of  the  poor  man  with  his  family, 
Jew  or  Gentile,  who  should  seek  to  better  his  cir- 
cumstances by  "selling  himself"  (in  the  Hebrew 
sense)  to  his  neighbor. 

From  overlooking  this  obvious  fact,  some  have  sup- 
posed that  this  statute  contains  a  general  prohibi- 
tion against  making  servants  of  Jews.  But  this 
supposition  is  in  flat  contradiction  to  the  statute  in 
Ex.  xxi:  2-7,  and,  therefore,  can  not  be  admitted. 
And  this  statute  does  not  even  pretend  to  forbid 
any  such  thing.  It  simply  commands  that  the  poor 
neighbor  ("And  if  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee 
be  waxen  poor,")  who  should  sell  himself,  should  not 
be  merged  in  the  household  like  the  six  years'  serv- 
ant, but  should  sustain  only  a  temporary  relation 
thereto,  like  the  hired  servant.  This  statute  is  just 
as  applicable  to  people  of  foreign  blood  as  to  native 
Hebrews. 

This  statute  also  closes  with  a  beautiful  allusion  to 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt.  "  For  they  are  my 
servants  which  I  brought  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt:  they  shall  not  sell  themselves  with  the  sale 
of  a  servant."  (Hebrew.)  These  poor,  unfortunate 
families  are  just  as  much  the  servants  of  God  as  the 
rich :  really  on  a  perfect  level  with  them,  as  God's 
children :  as  such  they  should  be  regarded  and 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  143 

treated  :  in  their  peculiar  circumstances,  they  should 
not  be  held  and  considered  as  common  six  years' 
servants:  their  household  should  not  be  extin- 
guished :  they  should  go  out  at  the  Jubilee  to  re- 
turn to  their  own  home  and  paternal  estate :  and  as 
an  independent  household  in  Israel  should  they 
serve  the  Lord,  whose  servants  they  were  as  much 
as  any  in  Israel.  All  the  people  were  commanded 
not  to  abuse  such  poor,  dependent  families,  but  to 
fear  God  in  reference  to  them. — V.  43. 

This,  then,  is  not  a  statute  concerning  the  Jubilee. 
It  refers  to  the  Jubilee  only  incidentally.  It  is  a 
statute  of  special  protection  to  a  particular  class  of 
poor  people,  who,  in  their  peculiar  circumstances, 
might  be  liable  to  abuse.  The  idea  of  slavery,  either 
as  it  respects  Jews  or  Gentiles,  is  not  in  it. 

Statute  concerning  Foreign  Servants. 

We  come  now,  next  in  order,  to  the  very  inno- 
cent, but  quite  famous,  statute  concerning  foreign 
servants.  This,  as  it  stands  in  our  English  transla- 
tion, is  as  follows:  v.  44-46.  44.  "Both  thy  bond- 
men, and  thy  bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt  have, 
shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about  you : 
of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids. 

45.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the  strangers  that 
do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy,  and  of 
their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat 
in  your  land :   and  they  shall  be  your  possession. 

46.  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance  for 


144  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

your  children  after  you,  to  inherit  them  for  a  pos- 
session; they  shall  be  your  bondmen  forever." 

Now,  taking  this  as  a  distinct  and  separate  section 
in  this  message  from  the  Lord  to  the  children  of 
Israel  comprised  in  these  two  chapters,  we  invite 
attention  to  the  following  observations  concerning  it. 

1.  The  idea  of  "  bondage,"  which  the  translators, 
designedly  or  undesignedly,  have  apparently  diffused 
so  freely  through  this  whole  passage,  really  does  not 
appear  in  the  Hebrew.     There  is  no  different  word 
used  from  that  which  is  usually  used  to  designate 
servants,  either  Jews  or  Gentiles.     Any  schoolboy 
that  can  read  Hebrew,  can  see  this,  by  examining 
the  passage  in  the  original.     "We  have  noticed  this 
fact  before. 

2.  The  passage  stands  in  no  position  of  contrast 
either  with  what  precedes  it,  or  with  what  comes 
after  it.     The  notion  that  it  stands  in  contrast  with 
the  preceding  statute  in  such  a  sense  that  we  are 
to  understand,  from  the  two  together,  that  Jews 
might  not  be  held  as  "bondmen,"  while  Gentiles 
might,  is  altogether  a  myth.     Nothing  is  really  said 
about  "bondmen"  in  either  passage.     As  Judge  Jay 
has  well  remarked,  the  word  "  bondmen,"  in  this 
passage,  is  "comment,"  and  not  translation.     Such 
contrast,  furthermore,  is  impossible,  from  the  fact 
that  the   preceding   statute  is   not  concerning  the 
Jews  generally,  but  concerning  a  particular  class  of 
Jews,  and  probably  itself  includes  Gentiles  of  the 
same  class. 

Nor  again,  is  the  assumption  that  the  preceding 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  145 

statute  commanded  that  Jewish  servants  should  go 
out  at  the  Jubilee,  while  this  directed  that  foreign 
servants  should  be  held  as  "  bondmen  forever"  any 
better.  There  is  no  such  contrast  between  the  two 
passages  as  to  afford  the  least  ground  for  such  as- 
sumption. This  statute  in  regard  to  foreign  serv- 
ants contains  no  allusion  to  the  Jubilee  whatever. 
It  is  no  part  of  the  Jubilee  statute.  It  is  a  statute 
by  itself,  like  others  both  before  and  after  it.  The 
particular  class  of  servants  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding statute,  were  to  go  out  at  the  Jubilee,  whether 
Jews  or  Grentiles :'  in  this  statute  nothing  is  said, 
one  way  or  the  other,  as  to  the  going  out  of  the 
Gentile  servants  spoken  of. 

3.  It  should  be  noticed  further,  that,  really,  this 
is  not  properly  a  statute  concerning  foreign  servants, 
but  simply  a  grant  of  permission  to  the  Jews  to 
have  such  servants.  It  lays  down  no  rules  for  the 
treatment  of  such  servants,  and  none  for  their  own 
behavior.  The  only  thing  in  it  is  permission  to  the 
Jews  to  have  foreign  servants.  It  contains  no  hint 
whether  they  were  to  have  them  as  hired  servants, 
or  six  years'  servants,  or  continuously  permanent 
servants. 

All  this  will  be  still  more  manifest  when  the  pas- 
sage is  divested  of  the  mistaken  coloring  which  our 
English  translation  gives  it.  The  following  trans- 
lation of  the  whole  passage  is  from  the  pen  of  a 
Hebrew  scholar,  whose  candor,  learning,  and  good 
judgment  no  one  will  be  disposed  to  dispute.* 

*Bev.  J.  Morgan,  D.  D. 

13 


146  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   KE-EXAMINED. 

"Thy  servant  and  thy  handmaid  which  shall  be  to  thee 
from  the  nations  which  are  round  about  you, — from  them  ye 
shall  acquire  servant  and  handmaid:  and  also  from  the  sons 
of  the  inhabitants  which  sojourn  with  you,  from  them  ye 
shall  acquire,  and  from  their  families  which  are  with  you, 
which  they  have  begotten  in  your  land ;  and  they  shall  be  to 
you  for  a  possession;  and  ye  shall  inherit  them  for  your- 
selves and  your  children  after  you  to  possess  (as)  a  posses- 
sion: forever  in,  or  by,  them  shall  ye  serve." 

This  translation  is  very  literal  and  idiomatic,  but 
faithful  to  the  original,  inspired  Hebrew.  The  one 
single  thing  in  this  message  from  the  Lord  is  sim- 
ple permission  to  the  Jews  to  have,  or  "possess," 
foreign  servants,  either  from  the  nations  around 
them,  or  from  foreign  families  dwelling  among  them. 
This  grant  was  to  be  continuous,  "  forever."  The 
servants  are  designated  by  precisely  the  same  terms 
as  are  usually  used  to  designate  Hebrew  servants, 
and  not  a  word  is  said  as  to  the  position  these  for- 
eign servants  were  to  occupy,  or  how  they  were  to 
be  treated,  or  how  the  servants  themselves  should 
demean  themselves.  It  really  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  Jubilee,  and  stands  in  no  such  relation  to  other 
statutes  as  to  give  it  a  special  signification. 

In  what  sense  the  Jews  were  thus  permitted  to 
"possess"  foreign  servants  as  "a  possession,"  may 
be  learned  from  a  parallel  passage  in  Isa.  xiv :  1,  2 : 
"  For  the  Lord  will  have  mercy  on  Jacob,  and  will 
yet  choose  Israel,  and  set  them  in  their  own  land : 
and  the  strangers  shall  be  joined  with  them,  and 
they  shall  cleave  to  the  house  of  Jacob.  And  the 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  147 

people  shall  take  them,  and  bring  them  to  their 
place :  and  the  house  of  Israel  shall  possess  them  in 
the  land  of  the  Lord  for  servants  and  handmaids : 
and  they  shall  take  them  captives,  whose  captives 
they  were ;  and  they  shall  rule  over  their  oppress- 
ors." Barnes  says,  that  by  the  term  "strangers," 
we  are  to  understand  "  those  foreigners  who  would 
become  proselytes  to  their  [the  Jewish]  religion 
while  they  were  in  Habylon."  These  "strangers" 
would  "join  "  themselves  to  the  Jews,  as  the  people 
of  God,  though  in  captivity,  much  as  young  converts 
join  a  Christian  church:  and  the  Jews  would  "take 
them "  and  "  possess  them  for  servants  and  hand- 
maids," much  as  Christian  churches  take  converts 
and  possess  them  for  servants  and  handmaids.  Yet 
these  "strangers"  were  foreigners,  and  would  be, 
as  members  of  Jewish  households,  foreign  servants. 
They  would  be  to  the  Jews  for  a  possession  forever: 
that  is,  they  would  be  permanently  united  to  them, 
to  be  one  people  with  them,  and  belong  to  them  as 
part  and  parcel  of  them.  In  like  manner  the  Jews 
were  permitted,  by  this  grant  in  this  passage  in 
Leviticus,  to  procure  and  possess  foreign  servants 
both  from  the  nations  around  them,  and  from  fami- 
lies dwelling  among  them.  There  would  be  no  cere- 
monial contamination  in  this,  and  no  disturbance  of 
God's  plan  in  reference  to  the  Jews  as  a  separate 
people.  It  would  really  be  helping  to  accomplish 
the  great  object  God  had  in  view  in  all  this  plan, 
namely,  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of  men. 

The  inquiry  now  arises,  How  foreign  servants,  ad- 


148  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

mitted  to  Jewish  households,  were  to  be  treated,  and 
under  what  regulations  they  were  to  come  ? 

We  have  already  seen  that,  in  the  grant  permit- 
ting the  Jews  to  have  foreign  servants,  there  is  not 
even  a  hint  in  answer  to  these  inquiries.  We  shall 
also  find,  on  investigation,  that  specific  rules  and 
regulations  in  regard  to  foreign  servants  are  no- 
where else  to  be  found  in  the  Mosaic  code. 

Now,  this  entire  absence  of  all  laws  for  the  regula- 
tion of  foreign  servants,  in  the  Mosaic  code,  points 
to  the  true  answer  to  the  foregoing  inquiries.  As 
servants,  they  were  to  come  under  the  same  rules  and 
regulations  as  were  Jewish  servants.  Specific  and 
very  definite  rules  were  given  concerning  Jewish 
servants  of  all  classes:  if  foreign  servants  were  to 
come  under  the  same  rules,  plainly  nothing  further 
was  needed.  If  they  were  to  come  under  different 
regulations,  surely  such  regulations  would  have  been 
given.  The  undeniable  fact  that  no  such  regulations 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Mosaic  code,  makes  it  safe  for 
us  to  conclude  that  foreign  servants  were  to  come 
under  the  same  rules  and  regulations  as  were  Jewish 
servants. 

This  is  confirmed  by  the  frequent  announcement, 
in  the  Mosaic  code,  of  the  principle  that  strangers 
and  native  Jews  were  to  be  under  the  same  laws. 
"Ye  shall  have  one  manner  of  law,  as  well  for  the 
stranger,  as  for  one  of  your  own  country :  for  I  am 
the  Lord  your  God."— Lev.  xxiv  :  22.  "  But  the 
stranger  that  dwelleth  with  you  shall  be  unto  you  as 
one  born  among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  thy- 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  149 

self :  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt ;  I 
am  the  Lord  your  God." — Lev.  xix :  34.  "Also 
thou  shalt  not  oppress  a  stranger,  for  ye  know  the 
heart  of  a  stranger,  seeing  ye  were  strangers  in  the 
land  of  Egypt." — Ex.  xxiii:  9.  Verily,  if  the  Jews 
were  permitted  to  admit  the  stranger,  or  foreigner, 
into  their  households,  they  were  well  and  most  im- 
pressively instructed  how  to  regard  him  and  treat 
him.  "  Thou  shall  love  him  as  thyself."  This  is  the 
uniform  teaching  of  the  Mosaic  code.  There  was  no 
need*  that  any  Jew  should  misunderstand  it.  No 
warrant  can  be  found  in  the  Mosaic  code  for  oppress- 
ing or  degrading  the  stranger. 

It  is,  indeed,  true  that  foreign  servants,  as  foreign- 
ers, and  because  they  were  foreigners,  were  somewhat 
restricted  as  to  certain  privileges,  as  were  foreigners 
who  were  not  servants.  But  the  evidence  can  not 
be  found  that  the  Mosaic  code  designed  to  degrade 
them,  or  restrict  their  privileges  in  the  least  as 
foreign  servants,  and  because  they  were  foreign  serv- 
ants. As  servants,  they  were  to  be  regarded  and 
treated,  in  all  respects,  as  were  Jewish  servants.  As 
foreigners,  they  were  to  come  under  the  same  laws 
as  were  other  foreigners. 

If  the  Jewish  Talmuds,  or  the  traditions  of  the 
elders,  did  pretend  to  teach  that  the  Jews  were  "  for- 
bidden to  tyrannize  over  their  own  countrymen," 
while  it  was  "  lawful  to  make  a  Canaanitish  servant 
serve  with  rigor,"  as  some  commentators  tell  us,  we 
protest  that  no  such  teaching  as  this  is  found  in  the 
law  of  Moses.  It  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  pas- 


150  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

sages  which  we  have  quoted.  Mere  inferences  are 
not  to  be  exalted  above  the  express  declarations  of 
the  Divine  Word.  We  believe  in  Moses,  but  we  do 
not  believe  in  Talmuds,  and  traditions,  and  false  in- 
terpretations. 

Resuming  our  analysis  of  the  chapter,  we  come 
next,  as  sustaining  some  natural  relation  to  the  pre- 
ceding statute  giving  permission  to  the  Jews  to  have 
foreign  servants,  which  we  have  just  examined,  to 
the  statute  concerning  Jewish  servants  whose  mas- 
ters were  foreigners.  This  occupies  the  rest  of  the 
chapter,  beginning,  as  we  suppose,  at  the  middle  of 
the  46th  verse.  The  division  of  the  Bible  into  chap- 
ters and  verses  is  a  modern  invention,  and  is  of  no 
account,  except  that  it  not  unfrequently  misleads  the 
reader.  We  think  there  should  be  a  period  at  the 
word  "  forever,"  in  the  46th  verse,  and  that  that  is 
the  conclusion  of  the  statute  in  regard  to  foreign 
servants,  and  that  the  rest  of  the  verse  belongs  to 
the  following  statute.  Our  reasons  for  this  will  be 
stated  very  briefly. 

The  word  "  but,"  in  our  English  translation,  which 
expresses  opposition  and  connection  between  the  two 
parts  of  the  verse,  is  merely  a  comment  of  the 
translators.  The  Hebrew  word  which  is  here  ren- 
dered "but,"  is,  in  all  respects,  the  identical  word 
that  is  usually  translated  and.  Says  Judge  Jay: 
"  The  initial  use  of  and  is  a  peculiarity  of  the  He- 
brew, and  especially  of  the  style  of  Moses.  Of  the 
one  hundred  and  eighty-seven  chapters  composing 
the  Pentateuch,  no  less  than  one  hundred  and 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  151 

twenty-eight  commence  with  and.  Even  the  books 
of  Leviticus  and  Numbers  thus  begin.  Innumerable 
are  the  laws  and  precepts  prefaced  with  and."*  If, 
therefore,  we  substitute  and  for  but,  our  translation 
of  this  verse  will  be  much  more  faithful  to  the  in- 
spired Hebrew. 

Supposing  now,  that  the  statute  concerning  the 
employment  of  foreign  servants  ends  with  the  word 
"forever"  in  the  46th  verse,  the  next  statute,  which 
occupies  the  remainder  of  the  chapter,  will  begin  as 
follows:  46.  "And  over  your  brethren  the  children 
of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one  over  another  with 
rigor.  47.  And  if  a  sojourner  or  stranger  wax  rich 
by  thee,  and  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  him  wax 
poor,  and  sell  himself  unto  the  stranger  or  sojourner 
by  thee,  or  to  the  stock  of  the  stranger's  family, 
after  that  he  is  sold  he  may  be  redeemed."  There 
is  some  natural  connection  between  the  injunction, 
"  And  over  your  brethren  the  children  of  Israel,  ye 
shall  not  rule  one  over  another  with  rigor,"  and  the 
statute  which  follows,  as  may  be  seen  by  referring 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  statute,  "  And  the  other  shall 
not  rule  with  rigor  over  him  in  thy  sight." — V.  53. 
As  if  it  had  been  said,  "Ye  shall  not  rule  over 
your  brethren  of  the  children  of  Israel  with  rigor," 
neither  "  shall  ye  permit  the  stranger  or  the  sojour- 
ner to  rule  over  them  with  rigor,"  as  he  might  be 
disposed  to  do  in  this  particular  case  of  a  poor  Jew 
sold  to  him  to  be  his  servant.  We  think,  therefore, 
that  the  latter  part  of  the  46th  verse  has  a  more 

#  Mosaic  Laws  of  Servitude,  p.  44. 


152  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

natural  connection  with  what  follows  it  than  with 
what  precedes  it.  It  undoubtedly  has  a  general  and 
indirect  connection  with  most  of  the  statutes  that 
precede  it  in  the  chapter  :  but  to  give  it  a  close 
disjunctive  connection  with  the  statute  concerning 
foreign  servants,  so  as  to  make  the  whole  mean  that 
Jews  should  not  rule  with  rigor  over  their  brethren 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  while  they  might  thus  rule 
over  foreign  servants,  we  think  absurd,  and  flatly 
contradictory  to  express  declarations  of  Mosaic 
law. 

This  last  section  of  this  chapter,  verses  46-55,  is 
manifestly  a  statute  concerning  poor  Jews  with 
homes  and  families,  who  might  have  rich  neighbors 
of  foreign  blood,  to  whom  they  should  find  it  to  their 
advantage  to  "sell  themselves."  It  was  perfectly 
proper,  so  far  as  appears,  for  Jews  to  sell  themselves 
thus  to  foreigners  to  be  their  servants,  if  they  were 
so  disposed.  This  statute  contemplated  such  cases, 
and  is  a  statute  for  the  protection  of  the  servant  and 
his  family  from  abuse.  In  the  first  place,  it  especi- 
ally encouraged  redemption. — Verses  48-52.  In  the 
next  place,  this  statute  provided,  of  course,  that  the 
servant  should  be  regarded  only  as  "a  yearly  hired 
servant." — V.  53.  The  poor  Jew  thus  "sold"  to  his 
neighbor  Gentile  should  not  lose  his  own  family 
standing,  any  more  than  the  poor  Jew  who  was  sold 
to  his  neighbor  Jew,  as  provided  for  in  verses  39-43. 
He  could  sustain  to  the  family  of  his  employer  only 
the  relation  of  "a  hired  servant,"  notwithstanding 
he  had  "sold  himself"  as  the  six  years'  servants  did, 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  153 

and  as  the  hired  servants  never  did.  Finally,  "he 
and  his  children"  should  "go  out  in  the  year  of 
Jubilee,"  and  return  to  their  home  and  possessions. 
These  regulations  would  sufficiently  guard  this  par- 
ticular class  of  poor  Jewish  families,  when  adverse 
circumstances  compelled  them  to  engage  as  serv- 
ants to  their  rich  Gentile  neighbors.  Neither  Jew- 
ish masters  nor  Gentile  masters  should  rule  over 
them  with  rigor. 

Next  in  order  in  this  message  from  the  Lord  to 
the  children  of  Israel,  chapter  xxvi:  1,  is  a  statute 
concerning  idolatry.  Following  this,  verse  2,  is  a 
command  respecting  "  Sabbaths."  The  next  section, 
verses  3-13,  pronounces  the  richest  blessings  upon 
obedience :  and  the  concluding  section  of  the  message, 
verses  14-45,  details  the  most  terrible  curses  upon 
disobedience. 

1.  Now,  in  all  these  rules  and  regulations  in  re- 
gard to  servants  and  others  contained  in  this  re- 
markable passage  of  Scripture,  we  have  found  neither 
slaves  nor  chattel  slavery:  no,  not  so  much  even  as 
a  hint  at  any  thing  of  the  sort.      The  legislation 
therein  is  all  concerning  servants,  and  none  of  it 
concerning  slaves. 

2.  We  have  found  no  degradation  or  oppression 
of  foreign  servants.     Warrant  for  such  degradation 
can  not  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch. 

3.  We  have  found  no  degradation  or  oppression 
of  servants  of  any  sort.     Such  degradation  can  not 
be  found  in  the  laws  of  Moses. 

4.  We  have  found  the  most  careful,  kindly,  and 


154  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

benevolent  provisions  for  the  protection  of  servants 
and  others,  whose  peculiar  circumstances  might  ren- 
der them  liable  to  abuse. 

5.  In  our  judgment,  the  grant  to  the  Jews  to  have 
foreign  servants,  never  contemplated  their  going 
abroad  to  procure  them.  We  think  this  grant  ex- 
tended, in  general,  only  to  such  foreign  servants  as 
might  come  among  the  Jews  from  the  nations  around 
them :  and  also  to  the  children  of  foreigners  dwelling 
among  them.  Such  foreigners  might  be  taken  into 
Jewish  households  as  servants.  They  would  thus  be 
provided  with  homes,  and  brought  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  true  religion.  This,  as  we  understand 
it,  was  the  object  of  this  statute  in  regard  to  foreign 
servants.  It  was  designed  to  absorb  and  make  Jew- 
ish whatever  foreign  element  might  find  its  way  into 
the  Hebrew  nation.  It  was  one  leading  aim  of  the 
Mosaic  code  to  keep  the  Jews  a  separate  people,  and 
it  never  could  have  designed  to  send  the  Jews  abroad 
to  bring  in  foreign  elements.  This  would  have  been 
a  fatal  mistake,  as  might  be  abundantly  shown. 

But  whatever  foreign  element  should  "be  to 
them,"  would  need  some  special  provisions,  in  order 
that  it  might  be  absorbed  and  become  Jewish.  For- 
eigners settled  in  the  land,  and  having  homes  of 
their  own,  might  be  circumcised  and  admitted  to 
the  privileges  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Others  might 
be  admitted  to  Jewish  households  as  servants,  and 
BO  find  homes,  and  be  brought  under  Jewish  influ- 
ences. Precisely  in  harmony  with  all  this  was  the 
statute  in  regard  to  fugitive  servants.  "  Thou  shalt 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  155 

not  deliver  unto  his  master  the  servant  which  is 
escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee :  He  shall  dwell 
with  thee,  even  among  you,  in  that  place  which  he 
shall  choose  in  one  of  thy  gates  where  it  liketh 
him  best :  thou  shalt  not  oppress  him." — Deut.  xxiii : 
15,  16.  This  undoubtedly  refers  to  foreign  servants 
escaping  into  the  land  of  Judea.  Such  should  be 
received  with  kindness,  and  permitted  to  use  their 
own  liberty  in  finding  a  dwelling-place  where  it 
should  please  them  best.  If  they  should  come  into 
the  land  of  the  Jews,  they  should  be  treated  with 
justice  and  good  will.  But  nowhere  in  the  Mosaic 
code  is  there  a  hint  that  the  Jews  were  expected  to 
go  abroad  after  foreign  servants. 

Finally,  we  regard  this  legislation  in  regard  to 
foreign  servants,  in  its  true  spirit,  as  a  beautiful 
exemplification  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Bible 
everywhere  demands  that  all  men  shall  remember 
the  "brotherly  covenant"  which  exists  between 
man  and  man  as  members  of  the  great  brotherhood 
of  the  race.  Instead  of  being  a  slave-catching  stat- 
ute, it  is  a  statute  of  brotherly  love.  The  Jews,  for 
wise  reasons,  were  to  be,  and  to  be  kept,  separate  from 
all  other  peoples ;  nevertheless,  whatever  foreigners 
should  find  their  way  into  the  nation,  were  to  be 
received  into  their  households  as  readily  as  people 
of  their  own  nation,  and,  with  a  few  needful  re- 
strictions, were  to  be  under  the  same  laws  and 
regulations.  They  were  to  be  welcomed,  and  em- 
ployed, and  treated  with  that  good  will  which  the 
law  of  God  requires.  The  express  injunctions  were : 


156  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

"  Ye  shall  have  one  manner  of  law,  as  well  for  the 
stranger  as  for  one  of  your  own  country,  for  I  am 
the  Lord."  "Thou  shall  love  him  as  thyself."  Love 
him  by  receiving  him  into  their  houses,  giving  him 
place  and  employment  there,  and,  consequently,  in- 
struction in  the  true  religion,  for  the  everlasting 
salvation  of  his  soul.  And  when  he  should  be 
settled  in  the  land  and  become  rich,  they  should 
regard  it  as  no  degradation  to  find  a  home  for  the 
time  being,  and  employment  in  his  household. — 
Lev.  xxv :  47.  "The  brotherly  covenant"  should 
be  sacredly  observed  between  them.  Neither  should 
" oppress"  the  other.  If  either  thought  of  making 
merchandise  of  the  other,  the  penalty  of  death,  with 
the  terrible  thunder  of  Jehovah's  voice  in  it,  warned 
him  to  beware. 


MOSAIC   SERVITUDE.  157 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  JEWISH  FAMILY  THE  TRUE  MODEL. 

PROBABLY  the  Abrahamic  household,  somewhat 
restricted  and  limited"  by  the  Mosaic  legislation, 
was  the  true  model  of  the  family.  Our  modern 
arrangements  in  regard  to  the  family  are  somewhat 
too  limited.  There  is  a  large  class  of  isolated,  half- 
vagabond  people,  that  might  be  made  a  blessing  to 
themselves,  and  to  others,  if  they  could,  in  some 
way,  be  incorporated  into  the  family.  As  it  is,  their 
life  is  a  cheerless,  unsocial,  profitless  one.  This  is 
deeply  felt  both  in  America  and  in  Europe;  and  va- 
rious experiments  have  been  made,  and  expedients 
resorted  to,  to  remedy  this  evil,  but  with  very  poor 
success,  for  the  most  part.  A  little  enlargement 
of  the  modern  household,  both,  in  benevolence  and 
dimensions,  like  the  Jewish  household  under  the 
Mosaic  restrictions,  would  exactly  meet  the  diffi- 
culty, and,  doubtless,  be  an  improvement  upon  mod- 
ern society.  This  is  not  socialism,  nor  any  thing 
like  it.  It  is  the  golden  mean  between  the  narrow- 
est household  of  the  hermit,  and  the  broad  and 
unmanageable  system  of  modern  socialism.  It  pre- 
serves the  family  intact  and  pure,  and,  at  the  same 
time,  furnishes  a  real  home  for  the  poor  and  homeless. 


158  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

There  was  no  poor-house  in  Palestine  :  there  was  no 
need  of  any.  The  semi-Patriarchal  household  sup- 
plied its  place,  and  was  much  better.  But  how 
monstrous  the  perversion  which  has  turned  this 
most  beautiful,  and  most  benevolent,  and  wisest 
household  arrangement  which  the  world  ever  saw, 
into  the  villainous  system  of  chattel  slavery!  0 
tempora  !  0  mores  ! 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE^  159 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

NEW   TESTAMENT  TEACHING  CONCERNING  SERVITUDE. 

The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  Jews — Hebrew  and  not  Greek  writers — True 
method  of  understanding  any  language — New  Testament  usage  main  guide 
in  interpreting  New  Testament  Language — Mistake  of  Conybeare  and  How- 
son — Classic  meaning  of  £o«x.oj — New  Testament  usage  of  fou\»{ — Infer- 
ences and  Conclusions. 

IT  is  impossible  rightly  to  understand  any  ancient 
writings  or  documents,  without  taking  into  account 
the  character  and  circumstances  of  the  writers.  Let 
us  remember,  then,  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  were  Jews,  and,  as  writers,  had  the  char- 
acter of  Jews.  All  their  previous  education  and 
training  were  Jewish,  and  not  Grecian  nor  Roman. 
Their  ideas,  feelings,  and  modes  of  thought  were 
thoroughly  Jewish.  They  were  bred  in  the  He- 
brew family:  indoctrinated  in  Hebrew  law  and 
religion.  They  wrote  as  Jews :  they  did  not  write 
either  as  Greeks  or  Romans.  The  fact  that  they 
used  the  Greek  language  does  not  militate  against 
these  statements  at  all.  They  wrote  in  the  Greek 
language,  because,  in  the  providence  of  God,  that 
was  the  common  language  of  Western  Asia  at  the 
time,  and  because  it  was  the  best  language  in  which 
to  have  such  inspired  writings  as  theirs  were,  pre- 
served to  the  world.  They  were  not,  properly 
speaking,  Greek  writers,  but  Jewish  writers  using 


160  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

the  Greek  language.  This  is  an  all-important  fact, 
to  be  understood  and  remembered.  Says  Dr.  Rob- 
inson, in  his  preface  to  his  Lexicon  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament :  "  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  applied 
the  Greek  language  to  subjects  on  which  it  had 
never  been  employed  by  native  Greek  writers.  No 
native  Greek  had  ever  written  on  Jewish  affairs, 
nor  on  the  Jewish  theology  and  ritual.  Hence  the 
seventy,  in  their  translation,  had  often  to  employ 
Greek  words  as  the  signs  of  things  and  ideas  which 
heretofore  had  been  expressed  only  in  Hebrew.  In 
such  a  case,  they  could  only  select  those  Greek  words 
which  most  nearly  corresponded  to  the  Hebrew  ;  leav- 
ing the  different  shade  or  degree  of  signification  to  be 
gathered  by  the  reader  from  the  context."  "Thus 
far  the  path  was  indeed  already  broken  for  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament.  But  beyond  this, 
they  were  to  be  the  instruments  of  making  known 
a  new  revelation,  a  new  dispensation  of  mercy  to 
mankind.  Here  was  opened  a  wide  circle  of  new 
ideas,  and  new  doctrines  to  be  developed,  for  which 
all  human  language  was  as  yet  too  poor;  and  this 
poverty  was  to  be  done  away,  even  as  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  on  the  discovery  and  culture  of  a  new 
science,  chiefly  by  enlarging  the  signification  and 
application  of  words  already  in  use,  rather  than  by 
the  formation  of  new  ones."  "The  New  Testament, 
then,  was  written  by  Hebrews,  aiming  to  express 
Hebrew  thoughts,  conceptions,  feelings,  in  the  Greek 
tongue.  Their  idiom,  consequently,  in  soul  and 
spirit,  is  Hebrew;  in  its  external  form,  Greek,  and 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  161 

that  more  or  less  pure,  according  to  the  facilities 
which  an  individual  writer  may  have  possessed  for 
acquiring  fluency  and  accuracy  of  expression  in 
that  tongue." 

No  scholar  will  question  the  correctness  of  these 
views.  In  the  progress  of  all  languages,  various 
words,  more  or  less  numerous,  vary  or  change  their 
meanings,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  In  the 
transfer  of  words  from  one  language  to  another, 
there  will  often  be  still  greater  changes  in  the 
meaning  of  the  words  so  transferred.  Words,  for 
example,  introduced  from  foreign  languages  into 
the  English,  very  generally  have  to  be  Anglicised 
to  suit  English  mind  and  English  modes  of  thought. 
The  only  proper  method  of  ascertaining  the  true 
meaning  of  such  words  in  the  English  language,  is 
to  study  their  present  usage  in  that  language.  A. 
departure  from  this  rule  would  lead  to  the  grossest 
errors.  Something  indeed  can  be  learned  in  regard 
to  the  force  and  meaning  of  words  introduced  into 
our  language  from  foreign  tongues,  by  studying 
both  their  primitive  and  derived  meanings  in  those 
tongues  from  which  they  are  transferred;  yet  to 
ascertain  their  exact  shades  of  meaning,  as  now 
used  in  English,  their  present  usage  in  the  English 
must  be  studied.  No  man  of  sense  ever  thinks  of 
disregarding  this  rule.  No  man  of  sense  and  of 
learning  ever  thinks  of  going  to  Cicero  to  learn 
what  our  Anglo-Latin  word  "auspices"  now  means. 
The  Latin  correspondent  of  this  word  was  a  favor- 
ite word  with  the  great  Eoman  orator,  but  in  a 
14 


162  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

sense  much  different  from  that  in  which  it  is  now 
used  in  English  composition.  It  has  been  Angli- 
cised to  meet  and  suit  English  mind  and  English 
modes  of  thought. 

This  rule  has  a  large,  special,  and  important 
application  to  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  Greek  language  of  the  New 'Testament  is  hea- 
then, Attic  Greek,  Hebraized  to  meet  and  suit 
Christianized  Hebrew  mind  and  modes  of  thought. 
To  understand  it  we  need,  to  be  sure,  a  knowledge 
of  classic  Greek,  but  we  need  more  a  thorough 
knowledge  of  Hebrew  mind  and  thought,  and  of 
Christian  ideas  and  experiences.  We  need  to  study 
the  language  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  light  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  of  the  Old  Testament, 
in  order  to  understand  it.  Heathen  classic  usage 
can  never  fully  and  properly  expound  for  us  the 
sense  of  the  New  Testament. 

Hence,  most  manifestly,  the  scope  and  teachings 
of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  the  particular 
subject  of  servitude,  can  never  be  properly  under- 
stood simply  by  a  study  of  old  Grecian  and  Eoman 
customs,  and  the  usages  of  words  in  ancient  Grecian 
literature.  These  may  furnish  some  help,  but  they 
by  no  means  constitute  the  standard  of  interpreta- 
tion. To  make  them  the  standard  would  lead  to 
the  grossest  errors.  As  a  representative  example 
of  this  sort  of  mistake,  we  have  a  notable  instance 
in  Conybeare  and  Howson's  translation  of  Paul's 
Epistles.  Those  learned  authors  have  undertaken 
to  translate  the  New  Testament  word,  ^OV^PC,  by 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  163 

the  English  word  "slave"  or  "bondsman"  in  the 
sense  of  slave.  This  is  both  a  classical  and  a  her- 
meneutical  blunder.  The  English  word  "slave'1  is 
very  considerably  narrower  in  signification  than 
even  the  classical  usage  of  the  Greek  word  dooXoz. 
It  often  refers,  in  classic  Greek,  to  servants  that 
are  not  slaves :  to  unchattelized,  free  servants.* 
It  quite  commonly,  to.be  sure,  refers  to  slaves,  but 
it  frequently  has  a  wider  sense,  referring  to  serv- 
ants that  are  not  slaves.  So  that  it  is  an  abuse  even 
of  classical  usage  to  restrict  this  word,  in  any  author, 
to  the  exclusive,  specific  sense  of  "slave,"  and  obsti- 
nately attach  this  particular  sense  to  the  word 
wherever  found,  without  regard  to  the  character, 
subject,  or  scope  of  the  author.  Simple  classic 
usage,  therefore,  should  have  taught  these  learned 
authors  better  than  to  make  Paul  call  himself  the 
"  bondsman,"  or  "slave"  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as 
they  have  very  foolishly  done  in  several  instances. 
We  strongly  opine  that  the  Good  Shepherd  does 

*Many  writers  have  been  misled  by  the  frequent  application  of  the  word 
£cbXo;,  in  classic  Greek,  to  slaves,  and  so  have  mistaken  its  true  sense.  In  a 
slaveholding  community  the  general  word  for  servant  will  often  be  applied  to 
slaves.  Slaves  are  servants :  or  rather  they  are  both  servants  and  slaves. 
Hence  the  Greeks,  among  whom  slavery  existed,  applied  the  general  term 
Jo«xo{  to  their  slaves.  The  general  sense,  however,  often  appears  in  classic 
usage,  though  the  term  is  freely  applied  to  slaves.  But  this  frequent  applica- 
tion of  the  term  to  slaves,  is  not  the  least  indication  that  the  word  is  not 
properly  a  general  term.  Our  English  word  servant  is  very  much  applied  to 
slaves  in  our  Southern  states ;  but  for  all  that,  the  word  properly  means  servant, 
in  the  general  sense,  and  would,  if  slaves  existed  wherever  the  English  language 
is  known,  and  this  word  was  everywhere  much  applied  to  them.  So  of  StuKot. 
Its  proper  sense,  as  a  general  term,  is  not  disturbed  in  the  least  by  its  frequent 
application,  by  the  slaveholding  Greeks,  to  their  slaves.  Its  primary,  general 
eense  frequently  crops  out  in  classic  usage.  "  Apud  Xenoph.  Anab.  .... 
witrapa  regius  JowXof  vocatur." — Schleusner. 


164  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

not  care  to  be  announced  in  this  world  as  the  great 
slaveholder  of  the  universe!  Even  classic  usage 
does  not  quite  necessitate  this.  To  take  one  par- 
ticular application  of  a  word,  and  restrict  its  usage 
and  meaning  exclusively  and  specifically  to  that,  is 
very  unclassic  indeed.  To  do  this  with  the  Greek 
word  doyAoc,  as  used  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
manufacturing  gospel-slaveholding  at  a  rapid  rate 
truly.  If  these  gentlemen  were  not  Englishmen,  we 
should  be  tempted  to  suspect  cotton  somewhere. 

In  the  second  place,  the  word  doithoz  has  figura- 
tive and  other  uses  in  the  New  Testament  which 
utterly  forbid  the  notion  that  it  was  used  by  the 
sacred  writers  as  a  specific  term  for  "slave:"  uses 
which  the  word  "slave"  in  its  modern  sense,  never 
does  have  and  never  could  have. 

Before  referring  to  particular  passages,  we  wish 
to  remind  the  reader  of  the  fact  that  this  word  is 
of  very  frequent  occurrence  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  occurs  at  least  one  hundred  and  twenty-five 
times.  If  it  should  be  translated  slave  in  every 
instance,  we  verily  believe  it  would  frighten  the 
most  hardy  translator  and  the  most  stolid  reader. 
Such  a  translation  would  fill  the  New  Testament 
with  discourse  about  slaves,  and  people  the  land  of 
Judea,  in  Apostolic  times,  thick  with  slaves,  whereas 
the  truth  is,  as  Dr.  Kitto  and  other  biblical  scholars 
affirm,  there  were  neither  slaves  nor  slavery  there 
at  the  time. 

In  referring  to  passages  to  exhibit  the  New  Tes- 
tament usage  of  the  word  &>5Aoc,  doulos,  we  will 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  165 

take  the  first  example  of  its  use  that  occurs  in  each 
book  of  the  New  Testament,  until  we  have  gone  as 
far  as  the  patience  of  the  reader  will  permit.  Matt. 
viii :  9 — "  For  I  am  a  man  under  authority,  having 
soldiers  under  me :  and  I  say  to  this  man,  go,  and 
he  goeth ;  and  to  another,  come,  and  he  cometh ; 
and  to  my  'servant,'  do  this,  and  he  doeth  it." 
The  use  of  the  word  in  such  a  passage  as  this  de- 
termines nothing  one  way  or  another.  The  "serv- 
ant" alluded  to  may  have  been  a  free  servant,  or  a 
slave  servant,  for  aught  the  passage  itself  shows : 
so  we  will  leave  it.  The  word  in  question,  however, 
is  used  thirty  times  in  the  book  of  Matthew,  rightly 
translated  servant,  in  the  general  sense.  In  several 
of  these  places,  to  translate  it  slave,  is  wholly  inad- 
missible. But  we  will  pass  on,  confining  ourselves 
to  the  first  example  in  each  book,  in  order  that  the 
reader  may  not  accuse  us  of  unfairness.  Mark,  x : 
44 — "  And  whosoever  of  you  will  be  the  chiefest, 
shall  be  'servant'  of  all."  This  was  spoken  especi- 
ally to  the  apostles,  after  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee, 
James  and  John,  had  made  request  of  Jesus  that 
they  might  sit,  one  on  his  right  hand  and  the  other 
on  his  left  hand  in  his  glory.  Let  us  put  in  the 
word  slave,  instead  of  the  word  "servant,"  and  see 
how  it  will  then  read,  which  will  give  us  exactly  the 
right  sense,  if  ooy/oc,  dottlos,  is  the  specific  term  for 
slave,  and  properly  means  slave.  "  And  whosover 
of  you  will  be  the  chiefest,  shall  be  'slave'  of  all." 
This  makes  either  supreme  nonsense,  or  sense  su- 
premely base.  Slave  service,  and  the  service  of  love 


166  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

and  good-will  referred  to  in  this  passage,  are  totally 
different.  In  no  sense  is  he  that  renders  the  latter 
a  slave.  Of  all  persons  he  is  furthest  removed  from 
slavery.  It  is  infinitely  absurd  to  use  the  word 
slave  in  any  such  sense.  And  where,  in  all  the 
usage  of  language  in  modern  times,  can  we  find  a 
similar  example  ?  Such  a  usage  is  preposterous  and 
unnatural.  We  never  meet  with  it.  The  free  serv- 
ice of  love  and  good-will,  such  as  the  law  of  God 
requires,  makes  any  man  who  renders  it  "  chief est ' 
of  all.  This  is  the  noblest  service  that  can  be  ren- 
dered, and  makes  any  man  who  renders  it  the  noblest 
"servant" — a  royal  "servant"  in  God's  moral  king- 
dom. But  it  is  simply  supremely  ridiculous  to  call 
such  an  individual  a  slave. 

The  first  example  in  Luke  is  found,  ii :  29 — "Lord, 
now  lettest  thou  thy  'servant'  depart  in  peace,  ac- 
cording to  thy  word."  These  are  the  words  of 
Simeon,  spoken  in  the  temple,  when  he  took  the 
child  Jesus  up  in  his  arms,  and  blessed  God  that 
his  eyes  had  been  permitted  to  see  the  great  salva- 
tion. Was  Simeon,  then,  one  of  God's  old  slaves? 
Does  the  word  slave  give  us  a  right  idea  of  his  char- 
acter and  relations  to  God?  Is  there  a  peculiar 
fitness  in  speaking  of  him  as  God's  old  slave  ?  If 
dovXoz,  doulos,  meant  slave,  these  questions  must  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative.  The  absurdity  of  this 
is  sufficiently  apparent.  But  let  us  pass  on.  John 
iv:  51 — "And  as  he  was  now  going  down,  his  'serv- 
ants '  met  him,  and  told  him,  saying,  Thy  son  liveth." 
There  is  surely  nothing  here  to  prove  that  the  word 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SEEVITUDE.  167 

means  slave.  Acts  ii :  18 — "And  on  my  'servants' 
and  on  my  hand-maidens  I  will  pour  out  in  those 
days  of  my  Spirit ;  and  they  shall  prophesy."  Here 
again,  if  the  word  translated  "  servants"  meant  slaves, 
we  have  God  set  forth  as  a  slaveholder.  In  what 
community  on  the  face  of  the  earth  is  it  natural 
and  edifying  to  Christian  people  either  to  speak  or 
think  of  God,  the  great  Father,  in  this  light?  The 
word  " servant"  in  its  freest  and  best  sense,  exactly 
gives  the  meaning:  the  word  slave  gives  a  sense 
that  is  sufficiently  shocking.  Bom.  i :  1 — "  Paul,  a 
servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apostle." 
Paul  a  slave  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  Christ  took  upon 
himself  the  form  of  a  douXos,  doulos,  "slave"  Paul, 
then,  was  the  slave  of  the  slave  Jesus  Christ.  All 
this  is  perfectly  fit,  and  nicely  rhetorical  and  beauti- 
ful, if  slave  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  word.  1  Cor. 
vii:  21 — "Art  thou  called  being  a  'servant?'  care 
not  for  it."  Whether  a  chattelized  or  an  unchattel- 
ized  servant,  of  course  this  passage  does  not  neces- 
sarily teach.  If,  however,  "servant"  means  slave, 
then  we  venture  to  affirm  that  the  direction  which 
follows  is  one  which  it  is  impossible  to  obey.  No 
man,  in  his  senses,  can  be  a  chattel  slave  and  not 
care  for-  it.  The  command  is  a  good  deal  more  than 
human  nature,  or  rather  the  human  soul,  can  bear. 
The  poor  slave  may  be  sflble  to  endure  his  wrongful 
bondage  patiently,  but  to  command  him  "  not  to 
care  for  it"  is  commanding  more  than  he  can  per- 
form, until  his  manhood  is  all  whipped  and  crushed 
out  of  him.  We  can  never  believe  that  God  ever 


168  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

laid  such  a  command  upon  the  suffering  and  robbed 
slave.  2  Cor.  iv:  5 — "For  we  preach  not  our- 
selves, but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord;  and  ourselves 
your  'servants'  for  Jesus'  sake."  We  do  not  believe 
that  Paul  ever  designed  to  call  himself  the  slave  of 
any  man  or  men.  He  was,  above  all  others,  next 
to  his  Divine  Master,  the  "servant"  of  all,  to  render 
to  them  the  cordial  service  of  love  and  .good-will : 
but  he  was  no  man's  slave. 

We  will  pursue  these  quotations  no  further.  These 
examples  may  be  taken  as  fair  specimens  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  this  word,  doioXoz,  doulos,  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament.  John,  the  Revelator,  applies  this 
same  word  to  himself,  to  the  prophets,  to  Moses,  and 
to  the  inhabitants  of  heaven.  How  incongruous  and 
preposterous  to  make  such  an  application  of  the 
word  "slave!"  In  multitudes  of  passages  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  translate  douloz,  doulos,  by  our 
word  slave,  makes  the  most  consummate  nonsense. 
We  do  not  believe  that  there  is  a  single  instance  of 
its  use  in  the  New  Testament  that  will  bear  this 
translation.  This  word  is  rightly  translated  by  our 
general  term  "servant,"  in  its  free  sense,  or  in  its 
most  general  sense.* 

*  We  have  not  room  to  multiply  authorities :  and  should  not  have  extended 
this  discussion  to  such  length,  if  some  very  modern  translators  and  interpreters 
had  not  made  apparently  desperate  efforts  to  limit  the  word  aoCa.0,-,  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  the  specific  sense  of  slave.  But  we  can  not  forbear  quoting  the 
following  from  Schleusner,  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  this  word  in  the  Greek 
Scriptures : 

"  Apud  Graecos  Scriptt.  latius  interdum  patet  et  ornnino  eum  significat,  gi« 
aliqua,  qucecunque  tandem  tit,  raticnie  alteriut  imperio  subeit." — Lex.  Graeco-Lat- 
inum  in  Novum  Testameutum  :  Art.  JoCXoj.  The  substance  of  this  is,  that  this 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  169 

As  this  is  the  only  word  which  is  often  translated 
"servant"  in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  only  word 
to  which  the  sense  slave  can,  with  any  show  of 
reason,  be  attached,  we  wish  to  present  other  con- 
siderations to  confirm  the  statement  just  made. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  then,  let  it  be  again  dis- 
tinctly noted  that,  in  the  Greek  language  the  word 
doulos,  doulos,  is  a  general,  and  not  a  specific  term. 
Says  Dr.  Albert  Barnes :  "The  Greeks  used  the 
term  dovXoz,  doulos,  to  express  servitude  in  the  most 
general  form,  whatever  might  be  the  method  by 
which  the  obligation  to  service  originated."  This 
is,  unquestionably,  the  character  and  usage  of  the 
word  in  the  Greek  language.  In  connection  with 
this,  let  it  also  be  remembered  that  the  Greek  had 
another  word  which  was  the  proper  and  specific 
word  for  slave.  "The  proper  word  to  denote  a 
slave,  with  reference  to  the  master's  right  of  pro- 
perty in  him,  and  without  regard  to  the  relations 
and  offices  in  which  he  was  employed,  was  not  Sou- 
Aoc,  doulos,  but  dvSpdxodov,  andrapodon."  "They," 
the  Greeks,  "used"  this-  latter  term  "to  denote  a 
slave  regarded  as  property." — Dr.  Barnes.  The 
Greek  language,  then,  furnished  the  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  with  the  general  term,  douXoz,  dou- 
los, having  precisely  the  sense  of  our  English  word 
"servant"  in  its  general  signification;  and  with  the 
specific  term  fodpd-odov,  andrapodon,  having  the 

•word  frequently  has  a  wide  signification  in  the  Greek  Scriptures,  and  signifies, 
in  general,  one  who,  for  any  reason  whatever,  is  under  the  authority  of  another ; 
that  is,  tervant,  in  the  general  sense,  .as  we  have  it  in  our  English  translation. 

15 


170  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

sense  of  our  word  "slave"  in  its  specific  sense.  The 
two  words  were  always  at  hand  for  use :  one  to  mean 
"servant,'1  in  the  general  sense,  and  the  other  to 
mean  "slave" 

2.  The  law  which  should  and  would  guide  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  in  the  use  of  these 
words,  is  manifest.  That  law  is  this:  when  they 
wished  to  give  a  specific  sense,  they  would  use  the 
specific  term;  that  is,  they  would  use  the  word  that 
means  " slave"  when  that  was  simply  and  specific- 
ally the  sense  they  wished  to  convey:  when  they 
wished  to  give  a  general  sense,  they  would  use  the 
general  term;  that  is,  they  would  use  the  word  that 
means  " servant"  in  the  general  sense,  when  that 
was  their  meaning.  The  only  exception  to  this  rule 
is  when  the  general  term  that  means  "servant"  is 
so  modified  by  the  connection  and  other  additional 
words  as  to  necessitate  the  specific  sense  of  "slave" 
When,  therefore,  the  word  dovtos,  doulos,  "serv- 
ant," is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  the  general 
sense  must  always  be  understood,  unless  the  con- 
nection and  other  words  so  modify  the  signification 
in  a  particular  case  as  to  necessitate  a  specific  mean- 
ing. To  illustrate :  the  word  " servant"  in  English, 
unmodified,  means  any  servant,  or  servant  in  the 
general  sense:  a  chattelized  servant,  regarded  and 
held  as  property,  means  a  slave.  The  modifying 
words  give  the  general  term  a  specific  sense.  But 
where  there  are  no  modifying  words  and  circum- 
stances, the  general  sense  remains.  Now,  let  the 
reader  mark  two  facts.  (1.)  The  specific  and  proper 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDES  171 

word  for  slave,  dvdpdxodov,  andrapodon,  "slave," 
is  never  once  used  in  the  New  Testament.  It  does 
not  belong  to  New  Testament  literature.  There  it 
was,  in  the  language,  with  just  as  much  aptitude  for 
use,  if  needed,  as  <?oWoc,  doulos,  "  servant."  It  was 
always  at  hand,  just  as  easy  of  use  as  the  other,  if 
it  had  been  wanted.  It  was  not  once  wanted.  If 
the  writers  had  wished  to  say  slave  in  any  instance, 
here  was  the  word  for  if.  The  inevitable  conclusion 
is,  that  in  the  cases  where  they  use  the  word  that 
means  "servant,"  they  did  not  mean  simply  and 
specifically,  "slave;"  or  that  they  so  modified  and 
restricted  the  general  term  "servant,"  as  to  give  it 
the  specific  sense  of  "slave."  (2.)  This  leads  us  to 
the  other  fact,  namely,  that  in  no  case  in  the  New 
Testament  is  the  word  Sou  lot,  doulos,  "  servant  "  so 
modified  as  to  necessitate  the  sense  of  slave.  Being 
a  general  term,  it  must  be  so  modified  by  the  con- 
nection and  other  words,  in  order  to  mean  slave. 
But  in  no  case  in  the  New  Testament  is  it  so  modi- 
fied. We  have  examined  all  the  places  where  the 
word  occurs,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  make  this  state- 
ment. The  passages  in  which  there  is  the  most 
appearance  of  this  will  be  examined  in  another 
chapter.  The  conclusion,  then,  is  inevitable  and 
irrefragable,  that  the  word  doutoi;,  doulos,  "servant," 
never  has  the  limited  and  specific  sense  of  slave 
in  the  New  Testament. 

3.  In  confirmation  of  all  this,  it  may  be  observed 
further,  that  this  accords  exactly  with  Hebrew  mind 
and  usage.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 


172  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

with  Jesus  Christ,  were  Hebrews:  christianized  He- 
brews, trained  up  and  molded  under  the  influence 
of  Hebrew  ideas,  modes  of  thought,  and  customs. 
This  fact,  as  forcibly  stated  in  the  quotation  already 
made  from  Dr.  Kobinson,  had  all  to  do  with  their 
style  of  composition  and  use  of  the  Greek  language. 
We  have  seen  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  these  writers 
avoided  the  specific  word  in  Greek  which  means 
slave,  and  employed  the  general  term  which  means 
servant.  This  is  just  what  might  have  been  expected 
of  such  Hebrew  writers.  As  we  have  seen,  slavery 
never  existed  in  the  Hebrew  nation  :  slaves  were 
never  held  there.  The  Hebrew  mind  was  not  ac- 
customed to  either,  and  had  no  words  for  either. 
It  was  accustomed  to  free  servitude,  and  free  serv- 
ants of  various  classes :  it  had  words  for  these.  It 
had  seen,  from  time  to  time,  much  oppression  of 
free  servants,  and  was  accustomed,  both  without  and 
with  the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty,  to  denounce 
such  oppression.  Its  Hebrew  word  for  "servant," 
like  our  English  word  servant,  was  a  general  term 
meaning  any  sort  of  servant.  The  origin  and  his- 
tory of  the  word,  and  the  laws  and  usages  of  the 
people,  would  always  secure  to  this  word  a  free 
sense.  Now,  in  using  the  Greek  language,  in  what 
sense  would  Hebrew  writers  be  likely  to  use  a  similar 
and  corresponding  general  term  in  that  language  ? 
But  one  answer  can  be  given  to  this  question. 
Nothing  could  be  more  unnatural  and  absurd  than 
to  suppose  that  they  would  use  such  a  word  as  a 
specific  term  for  slave.  No  similar  instance  of  the 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SEEVITUDE.  173 

use  of  words  can  be  found  in  the  literature  of  the 
world.  But  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
that  they  should  employ  the  general  Greek  term 
&>y/oc,  doulos,  "servant,"  precisely  as  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  use  the  corresponding  Hebrew  term. 
This  they  have  done. 

4.  One  thing  more.  The  word  "servant,"  in  a. 
free  community  where  slavery  does  not  exist,  usually 
refers  in  its  usage  to  fr.ee  servants.  It  is  applied  to 
all  classes  of  servants  that  exist  in  that  community. 
It  is  capable  of  a  wider  sense,  to  be  sure,  and  may 
be  extended  to  include  all  sorts  of  servants  every- 
where. But  common  usage  in  a  community  where 
slavery  does  not  exist,  would  apply  the  word  to  such 
servants  as  actually  do  exist  there,  that  is,  to  all 
sorts  of  free  servants,  since  slave  servants  are  ex- 
cluded by  the  supposition.  And  this  is  the  common 
use  of  the  word  "servant"  in  these  Northern  states, 
where  slavery  does  not  exist.  The  word  is  applied 
to  any  class  of  free  servants ;  or,  when  extended  in 
its  signification  and  application,  any  servants  what- 
ever. When  individual  servants,  or  classes  of  serv- 
ants are  spoken  of  in  a  free  community,  it  is  under- 
stood that  the  servants  are  free  servants.  When  the 
term  is  used  in  its  widest  and  most  general  sense,  as 
it  often  is,  then  the  meaning  is  understood  to  be  any 
servant  or  servants  whatever.  When  a  kitchen  serv- 
ant is  referred  to,  the  assumption  always  is,  in  a  free 
community,  that  that  servant  is  a  free  servant :  when 
a  factory  servant  is  referred  to,  the  assumption  is 
that  that  servant  is  a  free  servant.  So  generally. 


174  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

"When  the  word  "servant"  is  used  without  qualifi- 
cation, and  in  the  widest  sense,  then  it  means  any 
sort  of  servant  whatever.  But  the  simple  word 
"servant,"  unqualified,  never  has  the  specific  sense 
of  slave,  in  a  community  where  slavery  does  not 
exist.  It  may  mean  some  particular,  individual  free 
servant,  or  any  free  servant  whatever,  or  any  serv- 
ant whatever :  but  it  never  means  specifically  a 
slave. 

Now,  it  is  notorious  that  there  was  no  slavery  in 
Palestine  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  when  the  New 
Testament  was  written.  Christ  lived  and  taught  in 
a  non-slaveholding  community.  The  writers  of  the 
New  Testament  were  brought  up,  and  lived,  and 
wrote  in  a  non-slaveholding  community.  Their  na- 
tion had  always  been  a  non-slaveholding  nation. 
They  had  always,  as  native  Hebrews,  been  accus- 
tomed to  non-slaveholding  and  free  society  ideas 
and  usages,  and  to  the  use  of  a  general  term,  in  the 
Hebrew  language,  precisely  like  our  general  word 
"servant"  They  found  a  corresponding  word  in  the 
Greek  language,  and  used  it.  The  inference  is  irre- 
sistible that  they  would  use  that  word,  which  is  So&- 
^oc,  doulos,  first,  in  its  proper  sense  as  a  general 
term,  and  secondly,  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  and 
usages  of  free  society.  This  would  entirely  exclude 
from  the  word,  in  its  simple  and  unmodified  form, 
the  specific  sense  of  slave.  When,  therefore,  the 
simple,  unmodified  term  ttouAoc,  doulos,  "servant" 
occurs,  we  are  to  understand  either  any  or  all  classes 
of  servants,  or  free  servants.  By  no  legitimate  pos- 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  175 

sibility  can  we  get  any  nearer  the  signification  slave. 
The  simple,  unmodified  term  dciuXoz,  doulos,  "serv- 
ant," can  never  mean  slave,  in  the  New  Testament, 
without  violating  all  rules  of  logic  and  sound  inter- 
pretation. If  it  ever  means  slave,  it  must  be  because 
the  connection  and  other  qualifying  words  necessi- 
tate such  meaning.  Whether  it  is  ever  used  in  this 
way  will  be  discussed  in  another  chapter. 


176  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

EXPOSITION  OP  PASSAGES  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
WRITINGS  WHICH  SPEAK  OF  THE  DUTIES  OF 
MASTERS. 

Eph.  vi:  9;    Col.  iv:  1. 

Is  the  word  douloz,  servant,  ever  so  modified  in 
its  use  in  the  New  Testament  as  necessarily  to 
restrict  its  meaning  to  the  specific  sense  of  slave? 
We  have  demonstrated,  in  the  preceding  chapter, 
that  it  must  be  so  modified  in  order  to  have  that 
specific  sense:  is  it  so  modified? 

1.  If  it  is   so  modified  as   necessarily  to   mean 
slave,  then  we  have  the  singular  fact,  that  in  every 
case  where  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  wished 
to  say  slave,  they,  in  every  such  instance,  used  a  cir- 
cumlocution with  a  multiplication  of  words  to  express 
that  sense,  instead  of  using  the  single,  specific  word 
in    the    Greek   language    which    means    slave.     In 
other  words,  we  have  the  singular  fact  that  all  the 
writers  of  the   New  Testament,  when  they  wished 
to  say  slave,  d-vdpaxodov,  andrapodon,  always  said 
servant,   douAoc,  doulos,  so  modified  as  to  limit  its 
signification   to   the   sense   of   slave,   that  is,    slave 
servant.     This  certainly  appears  very  unlikely. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  if  servant,  dovJioc,  doulos, 
modified,  is  the  uniform  mode  of  saying  slave  in  the 


NEW  TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  177 

New  Testament,  the  modifying  words,  adjuncts, 
and  circumstances  ought  to  be  very  definite  and 
unequivocal.  For  doiuXos,  doulos,  can  not  be  uni- 
formly translated  slave  in  the  New  Testament  with- 
out making  the  grossest  nonsense  in  most  of  the 
places  where  it  is  used.  If,  therefore,  in  some  few 
cases  it  really  means  slave,  it  ought  to  be,  and  would 
be,  so  modified  as  to  make  this  sense  unequivocal. 
For  how  else  could  it  be  known  when  it  meant 
slave,  and  when  it  meant  servant,  in  the  general 
sense?  We  are  to  look,  then,  for  a  modification 
that  shall  be  distinct  and  unequivocal,  and  that  can 
not  be  mistaken. 

3.  It  is,  however,  only  by  examining  particular 
passages  that  we  can  determine  whether  the  word 
servant,  douXot;,  doulos,  is  so  modified  as  necessa- 
rily to  limit  its  signification  to  the  simple  sense  of 
slave.  It  would  be  needless  to  examine  all  the  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament  in  which  the  word 
occurs,  in  reference  to  this  question.  We  will  take 
all  the  passages  where  directions  and  commands  are 
given  to  servants,  doitXoc,  douloi,  or  to  masters. 
These  are  really  all  the  passages  that  relate  to  this 
discussion. 

All  these  passages  are  found  in  the  writings  of 
Paul.  Those  which  speak  of  the  duties  of  masters 
are  only  two :  Eph.  vi :  9,  and  Col.  iv :  1.  Those 
which  refer  to  the  duties  of  servants  are  the  five 
following :  1  Cor.  vii :  20-24 ;  Eph.  vi :  5-8 ;  Col.  iii : 
22-25;  1  Tim.  vi:  1-5;  Titus,  ii :  9,  10.  Let  us 
quote  and  carefully  examine  each  of  these  passages, 


178  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

and  see,  if  we  can,  whether  they  are  so  modified 
that  the  servants  spoken  of  therein  are,  of  necessity, 
slave-servants,  or  rather  servants  who  are  also  slaves, 
or,  more  correctly  still,  simply  slaves  without  refer- 
ence to  the  question  of  service  at  all.  And  while 
we  are  doing  this,  to  save  time  and  space,  and  to 
avoid  repeating  quotations,  we  wish  also  to  give  a 
general  exposition  of  these  several  passages  as  we  go 
along.  These  two  things  may  be  conducted  together, 
and  mutually  assist  each  other. 

First  passage:  Eph.  vi:  9 — "And,  ye  masters, 
do  the  same  things  unto  them,  forbearing  threat- 
ening :  knowing  that  your  Master  also  is  in  heaven ; 
neither  is  there  respect  of  persons  with  him." 

In  this  passage  the  word  ooDAoc,  doulos,  "  serv- 
ant "  does  not  occur.  This  word,  however,  is  found 
in  immediate  connection,  and  the  pronoun  "them" 
refers  back  to  this  word  in  the  preceding  verses. 
Its  meaning,  of  course,  is  to  be  ascertained  by 
referring  to  its  antecedent.  This  will  be  examined 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  verses  in  connection, 
as  speaking  of  the  duties  of  servants.  There  is 
nothing  in  this  verse  itself  which  can  possibly 
modify  the  pronoun  them,  so  as  to  limit  and  refer 
its  signification  to  slaves,  except  the  word  masters. 
If  the  word  masters  means  slave-owning  masters, 
then  the  word  them,  as  referring  back  to  servants, 
means  slaves.  If  "masters"  in  this  verse  means 
slaveholders,  of  course  the  servants  belonging  to 
them  are  slaves.  But  there  is  nothing  in  this  word 
"masters"  to  indicate  that  it  refers  to  slaveholding 


NEW  TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  179 

masters.  The  Greek  word  for  "masters,"  in  this 
passage,  is  usually  translated  "  lord,"  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence,  and 
is  applied  to  Jesus  Christ  much  more  frequently 
than  to  any  one  else.  Its  proper  sense  is  not 
slaveholder,  by  any  means.  It  is  applied  to  any 
individual  who  occupies  a  station  of  superintendance, 
control,  or  authority.  It  has  no  reference  to  prop- 
erty-ownership in  those  under  control.  It  is  a 
proper  word  for  all  sorts  of  servants  to  use  in 
referring  to  and  designating  their  masters.  It  is  a 
suitable  word  to  apply  to  all  sorts  of  persons  that 
have  the  control  of  others — to  all  sorts  of  masters. 
In  the  verse  before  us  it  undoubtedly  means  mas- 
ters in  the  general  sense :  all  sorts  of  masters ;  and 
has  no  special  reference  to  slaveholders  whatever. 
There  is  nothing,  therefore,  in  this  passage  which 
necessitates  its  reference  to  slaves  or  slaveholders. 
There  is  absolutely  nothing  which  looks  particularly 
in  that  direction. 

The  other  passage,  addressed  particularly  to  mas- 
ters, and  defining  their  duties,  is  found  in  Col.  iv: 
1.  "Masters  give  unto  your  servants  that  which  is 
just  and  equal ;  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  Master 
in  heaven." 

The  same  word  is  used  here  to  mean  "  masters  " 
as  in  the  other  passage,  quoted  from  Ephesians. 
This  same  word  occurs  also  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
verse.  If  slaves  and  slaveholders  are  meant  here,  it 
will  exactly  give  the  sense  to  substitute  these  words 
for  the  words  "servants"  and  "masters."  We  shall 


180  BIBLE   SERVITUDE  RE-EXAMINED. 

then  get  the  full  import  and  beauty  of  the  passage. 
"  Slaveholders  give  unto  your  slaves  that  which  is 
just  and  equal :  knowing  that  ye  also  have  a  slave- 
holder in  heaven."  The  truth  is,  the  word  "mas- 
ters," as  already  shown,  does  not  mean  slave-owning 
masters  specifically.  The  word  "  servants  "  is  un- 
modified, and,  consequently,  can  not  have  the  specific 
sense  of  slave. 

There  is,  therefore,  absolutely  nothing  at  all  in 
either  of  these  passages  to  necessitate  or  demand  a 
particular  reference  to  slaves  and  slaveholders.  In 
neither  of  them  are  the  terms  used  so  modified  as  to 
indicate  such  reference.  And,  let  it  bs  remembered, 
there  is  not  the  least  authority  for  giving  them  such 
reference  without  such  modification. 

To  confirm  all  this,  it  may  be  remarked  further, 
(1.)  That  so  discriminating  a  writer  as  Paul  would 
be  very  likely  to  say  slaves  and  slaveholders,  in  some 
way  very  distinctly,  if  he  meant  exactly  that  and 
nothing  else.  He  knew  the  difference  well  between 
general  and  specific  statements,  and  knew  very  well 
how  to  make  both  very  clearly.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  has  used  only  general  terms  unqualified, 
and  it  is  altogether  proper  to  conclude  that  his 
sense  is  general.  If  he  had  meant  any  particular  sort 
of  masters,  in  these  passages,  he  was  abundantly  com- 
•petent  to  say  so.  That  he  was  not  afraid  to  say  so,  is 
abundantly  proved,  from  the  fact  that  he  has -cata- 
logued "men-stealers,"  in  his  First  Epistle  to  Timo- 
thy, with  "liars,"  "whore-mongers,"  and  "murder- 
ers," for  whom  the  law  of  God  was  especially  made. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  181 

(2.)  The  view  which  we  take  is  further  confirmed 
by  the  consideration,  that,  if  these  xtwo  passages 
under  examination,  which  speak  of  the  duties  of 
masters,  refer  specifically  to  that  particular  class  of 
masters  who  are  slaveholders,  then,  in  all  Paul's 
writings,  and  in  all  the  New  Testament,  we  have 
not  one  solitary  direction,  or  command,  or  exhorta- 
tion, or  instruction,  addressed  to  any  other  sort  or 
sorts  of  masters.  Who  believes  that  such  a  writer 
as  Paul  would  single  out  slaveholding  masters  and 
give  directions  and  commands  to  them,  and  leave  all 
other  masters  wholly  out  of  the  account  ?  Who  be- 
lieves that  the  teachings  of  the  entire  New  Testa- 
ment wholly  pass  by  all  masters,  except  slaveholders  ? 
But  so  it  is,  if  these  two  passages  refer  specifically 
to  slaveholders.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  the 
language  of  these  passages  is  general,  and  the  sense 
is  general.  They  refer  to  masters  in  the  general 
sense,  and  are  limited  to  no  one  class  in  particular. 

(3.)  One  thing  more.  These  directions,  manifestly, 
assume  the  continuance  of  the  relation  involved  in 
the  terms  servant  and  master.  If  these  terms  mean 
slave  and  slaveholder,  then  the  relation  is  that  of 
slave  and  owner.  Now,  mark :  these  directions  are 
totally  impossible  to  that  relation.  They  can  not  be 
applied  to  it  without  annihilating  it,  any  more  than 
you  can  apply  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  to  the  lib- 
ertine, without  breaking  up  the  relation  which  he 
sustains  to  his  mistresses.  The  directions  given 
are  such  as  would  instantly  change  all  sorts  of 
masters  into  upright  and  righteous  non-slavehold- 


182  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

ing  masters.  They  directly  and  positively  forbid  all 
regarding,  treating,  and  holding  of  human  beings  as 
property.  They  absolutely  and  forever  cut  off  all 
trespass  upon  personal  manhood  rights.  No  man 
can  give  to  his  servant  that  which  is  "just,"  and 
regard  him  as  property.  Such  regarding  is  gross 
injustice — injustice  per  se.  No  man  can  give  to  his 
servant  that  which  is  "just,"  and  treat  him  as  pro- 
perty. Such  treating  is  gross  injustice — injustice 
per  se.  No  man  can  give  to  his  servant  that  which 
is  "just,"  and  hold  him  as  property.  Such  holding 
is  gross  injustice — injustice  per  se.  The  moment  the 
slaveholder  gives  to  his  slaveservant  that  which  is 
"just,"  he  ceases  to  regard,  or  treat,  or  hold  him  as 
property.  The  moment  he  does  that,  he  ceases  to  be 
a  slaveholder,  and  his  slaveservant  drops  the  slave, 
and  becomes  a  servant.  No  man  can  give  to  his 
servant  that  which  is  "equal,"  and  regard  him  as 
property.  All  such  regarding  is  great  degradation — 
partial  and  unequal.  No  man  can  give  to  his  serv- 
ant that  which  is  "equal,"  and  treat  him  as  property. 
All  such  treating  is  great  degradation — partial  and 
unequal.  No  man  can  give  to  his  servant  that  which 
is  "equal,"  and  hold  him  as  property.  All  such 
holding  is  great  degradation — partial  and  unequal. 
And  there  is  not  a  slave-owner  on  all  the  face  of  the 
earth  who  would  not  so  judge,  if  the  tables  were 
turned,  and  the  chattel  principle  should  fasten  its 
base  grip  upon  himself.  It  is  utterly  impossible  to 
apply  these  directions  to  the  relation  of  slave-serv- 
ants and  slave-masters  without  abolishing  the  rela- 


NEW  TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  183 

tion  of  slave  and  owner.  As,  therefore,  these  direc- 
tions evidently  contemplate  the  continuance  of  the  re- 
lation involved  in  the  terms  master  and  servant,  that 
relation  could  not  have  been  that  of  slave  and  owner  : 
for  the  moment  they  touch  that  relation  they  anni- 
hilate it. 

The  moral  legislation  in  these  two  passages  is  very 
remarkable — remarkable  for  its  brevity,  breadth,  and 
completeness.  It  is  applicable  to  all  masters,  and 
covers  the  whole  ground  of  mastership.  It  recog- 
nizes human  equality  fully;  and,  by  one  single  en- 
actment, imposes  the  great  law  of  love  upon  all 
masters  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  It  instantly  trans- 
mutes all  masters,  whether  in  English  factories,  on 
Yankee  farms,  on  board  pirate  vessels,  in  the  gene- 
ral's tent,  in  banditti  dens,  on  slave  plantations,  in 
Turkish  seraglios,  or  anywhere  else  on  God's  earth, 
into  upright,  righteous,  non-slaveholding,  and  non- 
oppressing  masters,  regarding,  treating,  and  holding 
their  servants  as  equal  men,  and  sacredly  regarding 
all  their  rights  as  such.  It  is  legislation  that  is  per- 
fect, final,  and  universal.  It  really  embraces  all  that 
needs  to  be  said  to  all  sorts  of  masters.  It  gives 
them  full  liberty  to  exist,  but  puts  them  all  alike 
under  the  great  law  of  equal  manhood,  equal  bro- 
therhood, equal  creatureship  before  God.  This  law 
instantly  abolishes  all  chattelhood,  all  trespass  upon 
personal  manhood  rights,  all  oppression,  all  injustice, 
all  partial  and  unequal  respect  of  persons.  Such  is 
the  breadth  and  completeness  of  New  Testament 
legislation  for  masters.  In  its  atmosphere  no  slave- 
owner can  draw  a  single  breath. 


184  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

OP   THE   DUTIES   OF   SERVANTS. 

SEC.  1.— 1  Cor.  vii:  20-24. 

IN  examining  those  passages  which  refer  to  the 
duties  of  servants,  the  question  before  us  is,  Whether 
there  is  any  thing  in  them  which  so  modifies  the 
word  servant  as  necessarily  to  restrict  its  significa- 
tion to  the  sense  of  slave1!  The  question  in  regard 
to  each  passage  is,  "Is  it  so  modified  as  to  make  it 
clearly  and  unequivocally  refer  specifically  to  slaves  ?  " 
It  must  be  so  modified,  else  such  sense  can  not  be 
admitted. 

We  will  examine  and  comment  upon  these  pas- 
sages in  their  order. 

1  Cor.  vii :  20-24 — "  Let  every  man  abide  in  the 
same  calling  wherein  he  was  called.  Art  thou  called 
being  a  servant  ?  Care  not  for  it :  but  if  thou  mayest 
be  made  free,  use  it  rather.  For  he  that  is  called 
in  the  Lord,  being  a  servant,  is  the  Lord's  freeman : 
likewise,  also,  he  that  is  called,  being  free,  is  Christ's 
servant.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price;  be  not  ye 
the  servants  of  men.  Brethren,  let  every  man, 
wherein  he  is  called,  therein  abide  with  God." 

In  this  passage  the  Apostle  lays  down  the  "gen- 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  185 

eral  rule  that  converts  should  not  quit  that  state  of 
life  wherein  they  were  at  conversion."  To  illustrate 
the  rule,  he  adduces  the  case  of  servants.  Now,  in 
this  whole  passage,  there  is  neither  word,  phrase, 
nor  circumstance  that  in  any  way  modifies  the 
term  doD^oc,  doulos,  "  servants,"  so  as  in  the  least 
to  limit  or  restrict  its  meaning.  It  is  used  through- 
out in  its  unmodified,  general  sense.  "  Art  thou 
called,  being  a  servant  ? "  Any  sort  of  servant. 
As  far  as  the  simple  inquiry  before  us  is  concerned, 
nothing  more  is  necessary  to  be  said.  To  multiply 
words  is  labor  simply  to  prove  a  negative,  when 
there  is  nothing  to  establish  the  affirmative.  But 
in  regard  to  the  general  sense  of  this  passage,  one 
or  two  things  need  to  be  remembered. 

1.  It  should  be  particularly  noticed,  that  the 
direction  given  in  this  passage  is  a  general  and  not 
a  universal  rule.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  can 
not  be  universal.  (1.)  It  must  be  limited  by  the 
nature  of  the  condition  or  calling  in  which  the  con- 
vert to  Christianity  found  himself.  That  condition, 
or  calling,  must  be  a  right  and  righteous  calling, 
else  the  direction  itself  is  incorrect  and  improper. 
"  Let  every  man  abide  in  the  same  calling  wherein 
he  was  called,"  with  the  implied  limitation  that  the 
catting  itself  is  right  and  proper.  The  calling  of  the 
servant  is  such;  and  although  it  is  better,  on  many 
accounts,  to  be  a  free  man  than  to  be  a  servant,  yet, 
if  needful,  there  is  nothing  degrading  or  improper 
in  being  a  servant.  Servitude  is  a  necessity  of 
human  society ;  and  if  a  man  will  throw  aside  the 
16 


186  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

feeling  of  slavish  inferiority,  and  assert  his  own 
proper  manhood  as  the  creature  of  God  and  honored 
servant  of  Christ,  it  matters  but  little  if  his  calling 
be  that  of  a  servant.  But  the  calling  of  the  Thugs 
in  India,  who  pretend  to  have  a  special,  divine 
appointment  to  strangle,  murder,  and  rob  their 
fellow-beings  for  a  livelihood,  is  an  unrighteous 
and  iniquitous  calling :  and  this  rule  can  not  apply 
to  that.  It  can  not  apply  to  any  unrighteous  and 
iniquitous  calling  whatever.  As  a  general  rule,  it  is 
good  for  a  man  to  abide  in  the  calling  wherein  he 
is  called,  provided  always  that  calling  is  right  and 
rigliteous.  (2.)  This  rule  must  have  another  limit- 
ation. It  is  good  for  a  man  to  abide  by  this  rule, 
if  he  has  chosen  the  calling  to  which  he  is  adapted. 
No  man  in  his  senses  supposes  that  Dr.  Milnor  or 
President  Finney  violated  this  rule,  and  sinned 
against  God,  in  abandoning  the  calling  of  the  law 
for  that  of  the  Gospel  ministry.  If  a  man  mistakes 
his  calling  at  first,  this  rule  surely  allows  him  to 
correct  his  mistake. 

There  may  be  other  exceptions  to  this  rule.  In 
the  nature  of  things  the  rule  is  a  general  one,  sub- 
ject to  several  limitations.  It  will  not  do,  therefore, 
to  insist  that,  according  to  this  apostolic  direction, 
the  slave  must  remain  a  slave,  because  that  is  his 
calling.  On  the  contrary,  we  insist  that  this  rule 
has  no  application  whatever  to  slaves,  as  rendering 
slave  service.  Unchattelized  servitude  is  a  right- 
eous and  needful  calling.  Slave  servitude  is  an 
unrighteous,  unneedful,  and  iniquitous  calling.  The 


NEW  TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  187 

calling  of  a  servant  is  right  and  proper,  and  no 
degradation,  though  compassed  about  with  some 
disadvantages.  The  calling  of  a  slave  is  abnormal 
and  unfit — an  evil  to  be  escaped  from.  And  this 
rule  of  the  Apostle  has  no  more  application  to 
slaves  than  it  has  to  the  imprisoned  victims  of 
piracy  on  the  high  seas.  What  if  the  pirate  chief 
should  very  piously  begin  to  preach  from  the  Bible 
to  his  captured  victims  the  propriety  of  their  quiet- 
ly "abiding  in  their  calling"  as  prisoners?  How 
ridiculous,  absurd,  and  impious!  But  not  a  whit 
more  ridiculous  and  impious  than  is  the  pious 
whining  of  slaveholders  about  their  slaves  abiding 
quietly  in  the  same  calling  wherein  they  were  called. 
How  came  the  slave  to  be  in  the  degrading  and 
iniquitous  calling  of  a  slave?  Precisely  as  the  vic- 
tims of  the  pirate  crew  on  the  high  seas  are  in  the 
calling  of  prisoners  on  board  the  pirate  vessel :  by 
force  and  robbery!  Every  slave  is  the  victim  of 
gross  robbery,  and  a  practical  compulsion  which  he 
can  not  resist;  and  it  would  be  just  as  fit  and 
agreeable  to  right  reason  and  the  moral  sense  for  the 
pirate  chief  to  apply  this  Bible  rule  about  keep- 
ing to  one's  calling,  to  his  prisoners,  and  tell  them 
that  that  was  their  "calling,"  and  that  they  ought 
to  be  faithful  and  obedient  in  it,  as  it  is  for  pro- 
slavery  people  to  seek  to  daub  over  the  slaves  with 
this  same  Apostolic  mortar,  to  whom  it  was  never 
tempered,  and  for  whom  it  was  never  designed. 
Chattelhood  is  not  a  calling :  it  is  only  a  stupend- 
ous wrong,  affixed  by  human  selfishness  to  the 


188  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

righteous  calling  of  the  servant.  The  slaveholder 
has  no  right  to  "  abide  "  at  all  in  perpetrating  it : 
and  the  slave  is  under  no  obligation  -to  abide  in 
subjection  to  it.  It  is  a  good  rule  that  all  people, 
even  servants  of  all  classes,  should  keep  to  their 
respective  callings,  provided  they  are  right  and 
righteous,  and  they  are  adapted  to  them.  This  is 
common  sense.  But  to  stretch  the  rule  beyond 
this  is  simple  perversion.  Neither  Indian  Thugs, 
nor  pirates,  nor  gamblers,  nor  slaveholders,  nor 
men-stealers,  nor  rum-sellers,  can  find  any  shelter 
under  this  good  and  wholesome  Apostolic  injunction. 
None  of  these  things  pertain  to  the  servitude  of 
which  the  Apostle  is  speaking  in  this  passage  under 
consideration..  They  are  no  part  nor  portion  of  it. 
They  do  not  belong  to  it.  They  constitute  no  ele- 
ment of  it.  They  are  simply  illegal  and  contra- 
band super-additions,  to  wrhich  the  injunctions  of 
this  passage  have  no  application. 

2.  "  But  if  thou  mayest  be  made  free,  use  it 
rather."  It  is  better,  on  many  accounts,  to  have  the 
full  reponsibilities  of  a  free  citizen  and  manager  of 
one's  own  affairs,  free  from  all  dictation  and  control 
from  others,  than  to  occupy  the  inferior  station  of 
a  servant.  There  are  many  advantages  in  being  an 
independent  citizen,  at  the  head  of  one's  own  affairs, 
over  any  position  of  service  for  others.  This,  too, 
is  common  sense.  It  is  safe,  encouraging,  and  elevat- 
ing advice  for  all  unchattelized  servants  engaged  in 
a  right  and  righteous  servitude,  of  whatever  sort. 
The  spirit  of  this  advice  inspires  the  heart  of  the 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  189 

field  laborer,  the  factory  operative,  the  apprentice 
in  the  shop,  the  servant  everywhere.  It  is  good 
advice  for  him  to  hear,  to  receive,  and  to  follow: 
good  for  himself,  good  for  his  employer,  and  good 
for  the  public.  It  is  perfectly  adapted  to  his  rela- 
tions :  in  perfect  harmony  with  them.  But  who 
does  not  see  that  this  is  advice  totally  unadapted 
to  the  relations  of  chattel  slaves  ?  What  mean  the 
Southern  police  and  slave-catching  blood-hounds, 
our  fugitive  slave  laws,  and  all  this  hue  and  cry 
about  enticing  slaves  away  from  their  owners,  if  the 
apostolic  advice,  divinely  given,  *is,  that  slaves  should 
seek  to  gain  their  freedom  ?  Who  does  not  know 
that  such  advice  as  this  is  totally  impracticable,  and 
not  to  be  tolerated,  for  a  single  moment,  in  any  slave- 
holding  community  ?  and  that  it  would  produce  end- 
less collision  and  warfare  between  slaves  and  their 
owners  ?  Given  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner,  and 
establish  that,  and  this  apostolic  advice  is  totally 
inadmissible. 

3.  There  is  other  bad  advice  in  this  passage  to  be 
given  to  slaves.  It  is  that  "the  higher  law"  is  to 
be  their  undeviating  rule  of  action.  "  For  he  that 
is  called  in  the  Lord,  being  a  servant,  is  the  Lord's 
freeman :  likewise  also  he  that  is  called  being  free, 
is  Christ's  servant.  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price; 
be  not  ye  the  servants  of  men."  Every  servant, 
then,  is  bought  with  a  price  away  from  all  service 
to  men,  to  be  supremely  the  servant  of  Christ. 
This  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  authority  which 
every  slaveholder  must  assume  and  exercise  over  his 


190  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

chattel  slave.  It  is  in  direct  conflict  with  the  au- 
thority which  the  pirate  chief  must  exercise  over  his 
imprisoned  captives.  It  is  advice  which  exalts  obe- 
dience to  Christ  above  every  thing  else,  and  makes 
every  other  service  subservient  to  that.  It  is  ad- 
vice which  can  be  given  with  safety  and  propriety 
only  to  men  and  women  unchattelized.  For  them, 
though  servants,  it  is  good,  and  wholesome,  and 
safe. 

4.  "Ye  are  bought  with  a  price."  To  understand 
this  as  a  figurative  allusion  to  the  slave  traffic,  in 
which,  with  infinite-  degradation  and  wrong,  human 
beings  are  bought  and  sold  as  chattel  property  like 
the  dumb  brutes,  and,  as  thus  illustrating  the  rela- 
tion which  Christ  sustains  to  his  people,  as  many  do, 
is  certainly  monstrous  enough.  To  make  Christ 
call  himself  the  slaveholder  of  his  people,  and  to 
make  him  call  them  his  slaves,  is  surely  a  great 
outrage  upon  Christian  common  sense.  Some  com- 
mentators, who  have  done  this  in  one  or  two  in- 
stances, have  not  had  courage  to  carry  the  shocking 
indecency  straight  through  the  Bible,  as  consistency 
demanded.  It  sounds  a  little  too  bad  for  the  most 
stolid  Bible  interpreter  to  make  the  "voice  that 
came  out"  of  "the  great  white  throne"  say,  "Praise 
our  God,  all  ye  his  slaves;"  (Rev.  xix:  5;)  and  to 
surround  that  throne  with  slaves,  with  Moses  and  the 
prophets  among  the  number !  Such  ideas  of  the 
relations  of  God  to  his  people,  and  of  Him  to  them, 
are  manifestly  too  grossly  unfit  to  bear  much  repe- 
tition. 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  191 

The  beauty  of  this  figurative  language,  which  Paul 
uses  more  than  once,  "  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price," 
can  be  fully  understood  only  by  referring  to  the 
ancient  idea  of  servitude.  Anciently,  and  always 
among  the  Jews,  the  servants  were  unchattelized 
servants;  and  yet  they  were  called  "bought  with 
money."  This  phrase,  "bought  with  money,"  de- 
scribes a  common  transaction  in  the  Hebrew  family, 
and  connected  with  the  economy  of  the  Hebrew 
household ;  namely,  that  by  which  individuals,  with- 
out infringing  in  the  least  upon  their  true  and 
proper  manhood,  were  attached  to  tHe  Hebrew 
household,  by  buying.  Money  was  paid :  on  this 
condition  the  individual  united  himself  voluntarily 
to  the  household,  to  be  under  its  government  and 
control,  and  to  do  service  therefor.  This  service 
was  voluntary,  cordial,  and  manly.  The  arrange- 
ment was  mutual,  and  had  in  it  all  the  sacredness 
of  a  family  relationship.  So,  a  great  price  has  been 
paid  to  attach  all  penitent  and  believing  souls  to 
the  great  family  of  redeemed  ones  on  earth  and  in 
heaven.  Christ  himself  has  volunteered  the  price, 
the  sublimest  gratuity  which  the  universe  ever  be- 
held. Bought  with  this  price,  believers  voluntarily 
enter  into  relationship  with  the  great  family  of  the 
holy,  and  with  Jesus,  the  eternal  head  thereof.  This 
is  a  relationship  and  an  attachment  vastly  higher 
and  more  sacred  than  any  thing  merely  earthly.  It 
really  absorbs  all  other  relationships.  It  is  mutual 
and  close — infinitely  removed  from  all  idea  of  slav- 
ery. Christ  has  paid  the  price:  on  this  basis  the 


192  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

penitent  soul  unites  himself,  by  faith,  to  Christ  and 
his  great  family,  to  be  under  his  control,  and  to 
render  to  him  a  service,  voluntary,  supreme,  affection- 
ate, and  hearty.  When  thus  introduced  into  this 
higher  and  diviner  family  relationship,  he  ceases,  in 
a  very  important  sense,  to  be  the  servant  of  men. 
"  Be  not  ye  the  servants  of  men." 

SEC.  2.—Eph.  vi:  5-8. 

"  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your 
masters  according  to  the  flesh,  with  fear  and  trem- 
bling, in  singleness  of  your  heart,  as  unto  Christ: 
Not  with  eye-service,  as  men-pleasers ;  but  as  the 
servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from  the 
heart ;  With  good  will  doing  service,  as  to  the  Lord, 
and  not  to  men :  Knowing  that  whatsoever  good 
thing  any  man  doeth,  the  same  shall  he  receive  of 
the  Lord,  whether  he  be  bond  or  free." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  word  "your,1'  in  this 
first  verse,  is  printed  in  italics  in  our  translation, 
indicating  that  the  word  is  not  found  in  the  original 
Greek.  If  we  leave  the  word  "your"  out  entirely, 
and  read  the  verse  as  it  stands  in  the  Greek,  we  shall 
get  nearer  the  true  sense.  "  Servants,  be  obedient 
to  the  masters  according  to  the  flesh."  The  word 
douXoz,  doulos,  "servant,"  (or  rather,  douloe,  douloi, 
"servants,"}  is  used  in  these  verses  in  its  naked, 
unmodified  form :  and  being  thus  unmodified,  it  has 
its  general  sense.  It  means  "  servants."  To  give  it 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  193 

the  limited,  specific  sense  of  slaves,  is  a  violation  of 
all  grammatical  and  rhetorical  rules.  The  word 
which  is  translated  "masters,"  is  precisely  the  same 
in  the  original  Greek  as  in  the  passage  which  we 
have  already  examined  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colos- 
sians,  and  has  the  same  sense  here  as  there.  Both 
terms  are  unmodified,  and  are,  therefore,  used  in  a 
general  sense.  Consequently,  there  is  not,  in  this 
passage,  the  remotest  allusion  to  slaves  and  slave- 
owners, any  more  than  there  is  to  pirates  and  pirate- 
victims,  or  to  Koman  inquisitors  and  their  victims. 
The  passage  pertains  to  servants  and  masters,  and 
not  to  any  of  these  other  things. 

In  regard  to  the  particular  directions  contained  in 
this  passage,  and  its  general  scope,  we  offer  the  fol- 
lowing remarks : 

1.  It  is  very  manifest  that  the  relation  of  servant 
and  master  is  assumed  and  acknowledged  in  this 
passage  as  a  right  and  proper  relation.  Now,  the 
relation  of  slave  and  owner  is  intrinsically  wrong, 
improper,  and  unlawful.  It  is  unrighteous  trespass 
upon  inalienable  manhood  rights.  To  assume  or 
acknowledge  that  this  relation  is  right  and  proper, 
is  gross  falsehood.  It  never  is  and  never  can  be 
right  and  proper.  It  is  universally  and  always  un- 
lawful trespass.  Of  necessity,  therefore,  the  relation 
assumed  and  referred  to  in  this  passage  under  the 
terms  " servants  and  masters"  can  not  be  the  rela- 
tion of  slaves  and  owners.  It  must  be  something 
else.  To  admit  that  the  -relation  assumed  in  this 
passage  is  that  of  slaves  and  owners,  would  con- 
17 


194  BIBLE   SEEVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED.  ' 

vict  the  Apostle  of  gross  blindness  and  gross  false- 
hood. By  no  possibility,  therefore,  can  this  passage 
refer  to  slaves  and  owners. 

2.  The  directions  in  this  passage  of  Scripture  are 
necessary,  common-sense  directions,  addressed  to  all 
servants.     It  is  right  and  proper  for  all  servants  in 
the  full  possession  of  all  their  manhood  rights,  to  be 
obedient  to  masters  according  to  the  flesh.     Indeed, 
it  is  impossible  to  be  servants  without  rendering 
such    obedience.      Obedience,  subjection — is   neces- 
sarily included  in  the  relation.     As  long  as  servants 
sustain  the  relation  of  servants,  they  are  bound  to 
obey  their  masters  or  employers.     It  belongs  to  the 
master  to  direct,  and  to  them  to  obey.     This  is  com- 
mon sense,  and  needs  everywhere  to  be  understood 
and  remembered.     It  is  exactly  the  right  sort  of 
advice  to  be  given  to  servants — good  for  the  servant, 
good  for  the  master. 

3.  This,  however,  must  be  a  general  direction,  and, 
of  course,  subject  to  some  limitations.     Obedience 
must  be  limited  by  the  nature  of  the  requisitions  of 
the  master.      If  these  requisitions  are  unrighteous 
and  wicked,  so  that  obedience  involves  moral  wrong, 
this  command  does  not  apply.     Servants  are  not  to 
disobey  God,  in  order  to  obey  masters.     They  are 
under  no  obligation  to  obey  unrighteous  commands, 
obedience  to  which  would  be  criminal.     If  the  mas- 
ter commands  murder,  or  licentious  pollution,  or  any 
other  intrinsic  wrong,  his  command  imposes  no  obli- 
gation upon  the  servant.    If  Aquila  had  commanded 
Paul,  when  he  served  Aquila  at  his  house  in  Corinth, 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  195 

in  the  tent-making  business,  to  take  his  youngest 
child  and  cast  it  into  the  Saronic  Gulf  to  perish  in 
its  waters,  such  command  would  have  imposed  no 
obligation  upon  the  serving  Paul  to  obey  it.  Paul, 
no  doubt,  whenever  he  found  it  necessary  to  "  work 
out,"  as  he  did  under  the  direction  of  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  was  a  good  and  obedient  servant,  but  he 
loved  the  higher  law. 

Neither  does  the  command  in  this  passage  apply 
to  enforced,  unrighteous,  and  degrading  servitude, 
such  as  slave  servitude.  It  may  be  expedient  to 
render  some  sort  of  obedience,  to  some  extent,  in 
such  cases,  but  such  obedience  is  not  due  to  any 
claim  which  the  oppressing  master  possesses  in  tho 
case.  It  is  not  due  to  any  obligation  which  this 
command  imposes,  for  it  does  not  apply  in  the  case. 
It  may  have  been  highly  expedient,  that  is,  due  to 
himself  and  due  to  the  universe,  for  Dr.  Livingstone 
to  lie  very  quiet  and  obedient  under  the  yawning 
nose  of  the  African  lion,  which,  by  a  hearty  shake 
of  the  great  explorer,  had  effectually  taught  him  on 
which  side  the  power  lay;  but  he-  was  under  no 
obligation  to  his  African  majesty  to  render  such 
obedience,  though  he  was,  for  the  time  being,  his 
master.  The  captives  of  a  Bedouin  marauding  party 
may  find  it  very  expedient  to  obey  their  murderous 
masters,  but  this  command  which  we  are  considering 
imposes  no  obligation  to  such  obedience.  And  why  ? 
Simply  because  the  servitude  is  an  enforced,  un- 
righteous, and  oppressive  servitude.  It  may  be  very 
expedient  for  the  chattelized  and  degraded  slave  to 


196  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

obey  his  owner,  who,  as  oppressor,  is  his  master  for 
the  time  being;  but  this  command  does  not  apply  to 
his  case.  And  the  reason  is,  that  the  kind  of  servi- 
tude is  an  enforced,  unrighteous,  and  oppressive  one. 
This  command  assumes  and  recognizes  the  relation 
of  master  and  servant,  placing  both  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing as  to  individual  manhood  and  its  rights,  making 
obedience  the  duty  of  the  servant,  and  direction  and 
control  the  duty  of  the  master.  To  this  relation 
the  command  applies.  As  to  the  relation  of  slave 
and  owner,  it  says  nothing:  but  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  to  this  relation  it  does  not  and  can  not 
apply. 

4.  This  command  of  obedience  on  the  part  of 
servants,  as  well  as  all  that  pertains  to  the  relation 
of  servant  and  master,  is  expressly  limited  by  the 
Apostle,  by  the  great  higher  obligation  to  Christ,  as 
the  Supreme  Lord  and  King.  Servants  are  to  be, 
first  of  all  and  supremely,  servants  of  Christ :  and  all 
their  service  to  men  is  to  be  subservient  to  this  their 
higher  service  to  Christ.  This  is  the  principal  thing 
in  these  instructions  to  servants  in  this  passage  un- 
der consideration.  Now,  this  great  and  fundamental 
limitation  is  perfectly  consistent  and  harmonious  with 
the  righteous  relation  of  master  and  servant;  but 
totally  inconsistent  with  the  relation  of  owner  and 
slave.  "  Not  with  eye-service  as  men-pleasers ;  but 
as  the  servants  of  Christ,  doing  the  will  of  God  from 
the  heart;  With  good-will  doing  service,  as  to  the 
Lord,  and  not  to  men."  Obedience  on  the  principle 
of  the  great  law  of  benevolence  or  good-will,  and 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  197 

wholly  subservient  to  that ;  and  the  whole  responsi- 
bility of  rendering  such  higher-law  obedience  thrown 
wholly  upon  the  servant.  And  then,  in  the  ninth 
verse,  the  masters  are  commanded  to  act  on  the  same 
principle  toward  their  servants,  and,  in  conclusion, 
they  are  told  that  with  God  "  there  is  no  respect  of 
persons,"  plainly  implying  that  there  should  not  be 
with  men.  So  both  master  and  servant  are  put  upon  a 
level ;  the  servant  to  obey  directions,  in  subserviency 
to  the  law  of  obedience  to  Christ,  and  the  master  to 
exercise  control,  in  subserviency  to  the  same  law. 
All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  relation  of 
servant  and  master,  but  totally  inconsistent  with  the 
relation  of  slave  and  owner.  Slavery  universally 
practically  abrogates  the  higher  law  for  all  its  slaves. 
Preaching,  in  the  true  spirit  of  this  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture would  not,  for  a  moment,  be  tolerated  on  any 
Southern  plantation.  It  takes  the  servant  and  ex- 
alts him  to  his  true  position  and  dignity  as  a  man,  a 
creature,  and  child  of  God,  whose  conscience,  whose 
moral  agency,  whose  true  freedom,  and  personal  re- 
sponsibility are  to  be  under  no  authority,  no  control, 
no  direction  below  that  of  the  Lord  Jehovah,  whose 
he  is,  and  for  whose  glory  he  was  made.  This  is  good 
and  wholesome  preaching  for  servants  and  masters, 
but  perfectly  suicidal  and  fatal  for  slaves  and  own- 
ers. The  two  can  not  possibly  be  put  together. 
They  never  are  put  together.  The  only  possible 
way  in  which  this  command  can  be  made  to  apply 
to  slaves  and  their  owners  is,  by  abolishing  the 
slavery  and  exalting  the  slave  to  the  condition  of 


198  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

an  unchattelized  servant,  and  subtracting  from  the 
owner  his  robber-ownership  and  making  him  simply 
a  master.  This  would  be  changing  the  relation  of 
slave  and  owner  to  that  of  servant  and  master :  and 
then  the  command  would  apply.  But  this  command 
has  not  the  least  possible  or  conceivable  application 
whatever  to  slaves  or  slaveholders  as  such.  That  is 
not  the  relation  which  it  contemplates.  Of  that 
relation  it  says  nothing. 

SEC.  3.— Col.  iii:  22-25;   iv:  1. 

This  passage  is  very  similar  to  the  one  in  Ephes- 
ians  which  we  have  just  examined.  We  will  quote 
it,  however,  entire,  with  the  first  verse  of  the  next 
chapter,  which  manifestly  belongs  to  it.  "  Servants, 
obey  in  all  things  your  masters  according  to  the 
flesh;  not  with  eye-service,  as  men-pleasers ;  but  in 
singleness  of  heart,  fearing  God :  And  whatsoever 
ye  do,  do  it  heartily,  as  to  the  Lord,  and  not  unto 
men;  Knowing  that  of  the  Lord  ye  shall  receive 
the  reward  of  the  inheritance  :  for  ye  serve  the  Lord 
Christ.  But  he  tha,t  doeth  wrong,  shall  receive  for 
the  wrong  which  he  hath  done :  and  there  is  no  re- 
spect of  persons."  Col.  iv:  1 — "Masters,  give  unto 
your  servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal;  Know- 
ing that  ye  also  have  a  Master  in  heaven." 

Here,  the  word  "  servants,"  dooXoi,  douloi,  is  used 
in  its  simple,  unqualified  form,  and  hence  in  its  gen- 
eral sense.  This  is  New  Testament  usage.  Hence, 
this  passage  can  not  relate  specifically  to  slaves  and 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  199 

their  owners.  It  relates  to  servants  and  masters. 
The  "your"  in  the  first  verse  is  a  superfluity  of  the 
translators.  "  Servants,  obey  in  all  things  the  mas- 
ters according  to  the  flesh." 

As  already  intimated,  this  passage  is  very  similar 
to  the  passage  already  examined  in  Ephesians.  The 
writer  is  the  same,  and  the  scope  of  the  passage  and 
the  directions  in  it  are  much  the  same.  The  per- 
sons spoken  of  are  "servants"  and  "masters:"  the 
relation  is  that  of  servitude — that  of  servant  and 
master.  This  does  not  include  the  relation  of  slave 
and  owner,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.  The 
passage  is  subject  to  the  same  limitations  as  that  in 
Ephesians  by  the  same  writer.  Like  that,  it  is  ex- 
pressly guarded  by  the  all-pervading  presence  of  the 
higher  law.  Servants  are  to  be  under  that  law  in 
all  their  service  to  masters.  Masters  are  to  be 
under  the  same  law,  and  to  give  to  the  servants 
"  that  which  is  just  and  equal."  All  this  is  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  the  righteous  relation  of  servant 
and  master:  but  perfectly  impossible  when  applied 
to  a  state  of  slavery.  The  moment  it  is  thus  ap- 
plied, it  either  totally  abolishes  the  slavery,  and 
transmutes  it  into  righteous  servitude,  or  creates  a 
deadly  and  fatal  antagonism. 

In  regard  to  these  three  passages  of  Apostolic 
writing,  found  in  these  three  epistles  to  churches, 
we  especially  beg  of  the  reader  to  notice  this  one 
thing.  While  the  propriety  of  obedience  on  the 
part  of  the  servants  is  admitted,  and  the  duty  of 
obedience  is  enjoined,  the  main  drift  of  each  of  these 


200  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


aims  distinctly  to  exalt  the  servant,  and 
make  a  God's  man  of  him,  precisely  on  a  level,  as 
to  his  manhood  and  its  rights,  with  the  master.  If 
the  reader  will  carefully  examine  each  of  these  pas- 
sages, he  will  see,  at  once,  that  this  statement  is 
literally  true.  It  is  not  the  object  of  these  passa- 
ges at  all  to  thrust  the  servant  down  into  a  dog's 
place,  and  degrade  the  man  out  of  him,  but  to  take 
him  away  from  all  this,  and  put  him  on  a  level 
with  the  master,  an  equal  creature  and  child  of 
God.  The  obedience  is  not  dwelt  upon — but  the 
exaltation  of  that  obedience.  The  obedience  is  admit- 
ted as  right  and  .proper,  but  in  all  these  passages 
the  greatest  care  is  taken  that  it  shall  not  degrade 
the  servant;  that  it  shall  not  trespass  upon  one 
single  right  of  his  as  God's  man,  God's  creature, 
God's  free,  moral  agent,  God's  child.  Not  one  of 
these  passages  can  be  applied  to  chattel  slavery 
without  instantly  consuming  it. 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  201 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
1  TIM.  vi :  1,  2 ;  TITUS,  ii :  9,  10. 

THE  directions  to  obedience  of  servants  to  mas- 
ters, in  the  three  passages  which  we  have  examined 
from  the  church  Epistles  of  Paul,  are  couched  in 
the  simplest  and  most  general  form.  "Let  the 
servants  be  obedient  to  the  masters."  Or,  perhaps 
more  accurately,  "  Let  the  servants  pay  good  atten- 
tion to  what  the  masters  direct."  In  the  personal 
Epistles  of  Paul  we  meet  with  two  other  passages 
which  contain  directions  to  servants,  in  which  the 
language  used  is  somewhat  different,  and  somewhat 
more  particular.  These  passages  are  found,  one  in 
the  First  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  the  other  in  the 
Epistle  to  Titus.  It  will  be  convenient  to  quote 
and  examine  these  two  passages  together. 

1  Tim.  vi :  1,  2 — "  Let  as  many  servants  as  are 
under  the  yoke  count  their  own  masters  worthy  of 
all  honor,  that  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine 
be  not  blasphemed.  And  they  that  have  believing 
masters,  let  them  not  despise  them,  because  they 
are  brethren;  but  rather  do  them  service,  because 
they  are  faithful  and  beloved,  partakers  of  the 
benefit."  Titus,  ii :  9,  10 — "  Exhort  servants  to  be 
obedient  unto  their  own  masters,  and  to  please  them 


202  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

well  in  all  things ;  not  answering  again ;  not  pur- 
loining, but  showing  all  good  fidelity;  that  they 
may  adorn  the  doctrine  of  God  our  Savior  in  all 
things." 

In  both  of  these  passages  servants  are  spoken  of 
with  special  reference  to  "  their  own  masters."  In 
both  of  these  passages,  also,  the  word  which  is  trans- 
lated "masters"  is  different,  in  the  original  Greek, 
from  that  which  Paul  uses  in  the  other  epistles  to 
designate  masters.  It  is  a  word  of  frequent  occur- 
rence in  classic  Greek,  but  does  not  often  occur  in 
the  New  Testament ;  not  more  than  ten  times.  Paul 
uses  it  only  once  (2  Tim.  ii ;  22)  except  in  these 
two  passages  before  us :  and  in  that  one  instance  it 
manifestly  refers  to  Christ.  Peter  uses  it  once,  in 
speaking  of  servants  and  masters.  In  all  the  other 
places  where  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
refers  to  God  or  Christ.  The  proper  meaning  of 
this  word,  (JsoTrorjyc,  despotees,  is,  "  the  head  of  a 
family,  pater  familias."*  The  head  of  a  family  is, 
in  an  important  sense,  the  "  master  "  of  the  house- 
hold. He  is  the  man  to  whom  servants  should  be 
subject.  There  is  not,  therefore,  in  the  word  "  mas- 
ters," which  is  used  in  these  passages,  the  remotest 
allusion  to  slavery  or  slave-owners.  We  have,  how- 
ever, in  the  peculiar  phraseology  of  these  passages, 
a  distinct  allusion  to  the  Jewish  idea  of  servitude, 
and  of  the  household.  The  servants  are  spoken  of 
as  being  attached  to  particular  households,  and  as 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  203 

having  the  head  of  the  family  for  their  master. 
Such  allusion  would  have  been  less  appropriate  in 
epistles  addressed  to  Gentile  churches,  but  it  is"  very 
significant  when  found  in  epistles  directed  to  Christ- 
ian bishops  familiar  with  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

Connected  with  the  word  dovXoc,  douloi,  "serv- 
ants," in  the  first  verse  of  the  passage  in  the  Epistle 
to  Timothy,  we  have  the  qualifying  phrase,  "under 
the  yoke."  "  Servants  under  the  yoke."  Does  this 
phrase  mean  slaves  ?  Is  this  the  idiomatic  form  of 
expression  which  the  sacred  writers  use  to  designate 
slaves?  If  it  is,  then  we  have,  at  last,  found  the 
specific  and  peculiar  form  of  speech  which,  in  the 
New  Testament,  denotes  a  slave,  and  we  shall  know 
exactly  where  to  look  for  the  slaves,  and  where  to 
look  for  servants,  and  henceforward  all  will  be  plain. 
But  it  so  happens  that  this  form  of  speech  is  used 
in  the  New  Testament  only  in  this  one  solitary 
place.  If  this  is  Paul's  peculiar  and  idiomatic  form 
of  speech  for  slave,  the  presumption  is,  that  when 
he  means  slave,  he  uses  this  same  form  of  speech. 
This  presumption  becomes  a  certainty  when  we 
have  found,  as  is  the  case,  that  he  uses  no  other 
form  of  speech  for  this  purpose.  This  would  set- 
tle it,  that  he  means  slave  in  no  other  place  in  his 
writings. 

But  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  peculiar  form 
of  speech  does  mean  slave,  as  used  in  Paul's  writ- 
ings. He  uses  the  word  "  yoke"  in  only  one  other 
place,  namely,  Gal.  v:  1,  in  which  passage  he  calls 
the  obedience  of  the  man  who  seeks  to  keep  the  law 


204  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

without  faith  in  Christ  "  A  yoke  of  bondage."  This 
yoke  of  bondage  was  not  chattel  slavery.  In  Phil. 
iv:  3,  he  tfses  the  same  word  coupled  with  the  pre- 
position with,  (<ruv,  sun,)  "  I  entreat  thee  also,  true 
yoke-fellow,"  etc.  He  here  calls  his  brother  Christ- 
ian a  "yoke-fellow,"  alluding,  perhaps,  to  that  beau- 
tiful saying  of  our  Savior,  recorded  in  Matt,  xi :  29, 
30 :  "  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  and  learn  of  me ; 

For  my  yoke  is  easy  and  my  burden 

is  light:"  in  which  words  Christ  recommends  his 
" yoke"  for  the  relief  of  those  "who  "labor  and  are 
heavy  laden."  But  this  evidently  is  not  the  yoke 
of  chattel  slavery,  and  has  no  allusion  to  it.  Peter 
makes  use  of  this  same  word  in  his  speech  in  the 
council  at  Jerusalem  on  the  subject  of  circumcision, 
Acts  xv :  10.  This  word  also  occurs  in  Eev.  vi :  5  : 
"  And  I  beheld,  and  lo,  a  black  horse ;  and  he  that 
sat  on  him  had  a  pair  of  balances  in  his  hand." 
In  Matt,  xix:  6,  and  Mark  x:  9,  a  verb  is  used 
derived  from  the  same  root,  which  refers  to  the 
joining  together  of  husband  and  wife.  In  Luke  ii : 
24,  "  A  pair  of  turtle  doves,"  and  xiv :  19,  "  I  have 
bought  five  yoke  of  oxen,"  we  have  another  form  of 
the  same  word,  in  which  the  primary  meaning  of 
the  word  appears.  These  examples  embrace  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  usage.  "We  have,  then, 
the  yoke  of  the  Mosaic  law,  the  yoke  of  Christ,  the 
yoke  of  marriage,  five  yoke  of  oxen,  one  yoke  of 
turtle  doves,  the  yoke  that  was  in  the  man's  hand 
that  rode  upon  the  black  horse,  and  the  yoke  of  servi- 
tude referred  to  by  Paul  in  this  passage  to  Timothy. 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  205 

From  all  this  usage  it  is  manifest  that  this  word 
"yoke"  has  no  particular  and  special  reference  to 
chattel  slavery.  So  wide  is  its  figurative  use  that 
it  is  properly  applied  to  the  service  of  Christ,  which 
Paul  takes  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  show  is  the  high- 
est kind  of  freedom,  and  not  bondage.  From  this 
usage  it  is  manifest  that  any  sort  of  allegiance  might 
he  called  a  yoke,.  The  yoke  of  common  servitude 
might  be  more  or  less_  severe,  according  to  circum- 
stances. In  some  households,  where  the  engagement 
was  for  life,  or  for  a  long  period,  it  might  be  very 
severe. 

In  our  judgment,  Paul  uses  the  word  douAoz,  dou- 
los,  "servant,"  in  this  passage  in  its  general  sense, 
as  he  does  in  other  places,  adding  the  phrase  "under 
the  yoke,"  to  indicate  simply  the  state  of  allegiance 
or  servitude  in  which  the  servants  were  held:  that 
he  acknowledges  the  propriety  and  lawfulness  of 
the  relation  of  master  and  servant  just  as  he  does 
elsewhere,  and  with  the  same  limitations :  and  that 
both  of  these  passages  do  not  differ  in  scope  and 
spirit  from  the  passages  already  examined  in  his 
other  epistles.  Like  them,  they  are  addressed  to 
servants  independent  of  their  masters:  like  them, 
they  contemplate  servants  as  true  men  having  all 
the  rights  of  proper  manhood :  like  them,  they  enjoin 
subjection  and  obedience  to  the  master :  like  them, 
they  put  the  servant  under  the  authority  of  the 
higher  law  of  obedience  to  God :  and  like  them,  they 
refer  to  the  relation  of  servant  and  master,  but  con- 
tain no  allusion  to  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner. 


206  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

INFERENCES   AND    REMARKS    SUGGESTED   BY    FORE- 
GOING EXPOSITIONS. 

IN  regard  to  these  several  passages  of  Scripture 
which  we  have  been  examining  from  the  writings 
of  Paul,  we  wish  to  remark  here,  that  there  are 
two  or  three  considerations  in  reference  to  them, 
taken  as  a  whole,  and  as  containing  the  instructions 
of  the  New  Testament  addressed  particularly  to 
servants,  to  which  special  attention  is  invited. 

1.  All  these  passages  manifestly  refer  to  the  same 
subject,  and  contain  substantially  the  same  instruc- 
tions  and   directions.      These    passages   all   plainly 
relate  to  one  and  the  same  thing :  and  the  directions 
in  them  are  precisely  similar. 

2.  Now,  if  Paul  meant  slaves  in  these  passages, 
it  is  very  singular  that  he  did  not  say  slaves.     He 
was  not  afraid  to  say  "  men-stealers  "  when  he  meant 
that.     He  uses  the  word  #oWof,  doulos,  in  connec- 
tions and  relations  where  the  sense  can  not  possibly 
be  slave.     His  general  usage  of  the  word  is  clearly 
in  the  sense  of  servant,  and  not  in  the  sense  of  slave. 
In  the  first  line  even  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Eomans, 
his  first  Epistle  in  order  in  the    New  Testament, 
he  uses  it  in  this  sense:   "Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus 
Christ."     Now,  it  is  very  singular  that  he  should 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  207 

use  this  same  word,  without  qualification,  in  the 
different  and  specific  sense  of  slave,  whenever  he  gives 
directions  to  servants,  and  nowhere  else.  This  is 
very  strange  indeed.  But  if  these  passages  refer 
specifically  to  slaves,  this  is  precisely  what  he  has 
done.  This  would  convict  him  of  the  most  wonder- 
ful literary  freak  that  ever  was  perpetrated,  at  least 
by  an  inspired  writer.  For  it  was  just  as  easy  for 
him  to  say  slaves  in  language  that  meant  slaves,  as 
it  was  for  him  to  say  slaves  in  language  that  meant 
servants. 

3.  If  Paul,  in  all  these  passages,  does  use  the  word 
ooDAoc,  doulos,  in  the  limited,  specific  sense  of  slave, 
as  most  of  the  commentators  interpret  and  expound, 
and  if  Peter,  also,  in  his  one  single  direction  to  serv- 
ants, means  slaves,  as  many  understand,  then  we 
have  not  one  solitary  direction  or  exhortation  to 
any  other  class  or  classes  of  servants,  as  such,  in  the 
entire  New  Testament.  Paul,  the  great  Apostle 
and  chief  writer  of  the  New  Testament,  gives  re- 
peated directions  to  slaves,  but  not  one  direction 
whatever  to  servants  of  any  sort:  for  a  slave  is  not 
necessarily  a  servant,  any  more  than  a  horse-jockey's 
horses  are  all  actually  employed  in  service.  Paul, 
guided  by  the  unerring  wisdom  of  inspiration, 
singles  out  slaves,-  and  commands  and  exhorts  them, 
but  has  not  one  word  of  instruction,  command,  or 
exhortation,  in  all  his  writings,  for  any  or  all  of 
the  multiplied  and  various  classes  of  unchattelized 
servants  to  be  found  in  all  the  world,  or  in  any  age. 
This  is  very  singular  indeed.  It  is  strange,  indeed, 


208  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

that  the  pen  of  inspiration,  writing  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  the  world  in  all  coming  time,  should  be  very 
particular  to  tell  slaves  to  obey  their  owners — a 
direction  against  which,  in  its  unqualified  sense, 
human  reason  utterly  rebels,  as  much  as  it  would 
against  the  command  to  pirate  captives  to  obey  their 
pirate  masters — but  should  entirely  overlook  all 
other  servants  and  classes  of  servants.  Husbands 
and  wives ;  parents  and  children ;  rulers  and  sub- 
jects; brethren  and  brethren;  teachers  and  taught; 
elder  and  younger ;  and,  at  last,  but  quite  prominent, 
according  to  this  interpretation,  slaves  and  owners, 
are  all  commanded  and  exhorted ;  but  servants  and 
masters  of  all  sorts  and  classes  are  skipped  over  in 
profound  silence.  Those  that  can  believe  this,  must 
find  reasons  for  their  belief  as  best  they  can.  "We 
believe  no  such  thing.  We  believe  most  fully  that 
masters  and  servants,  and  not  slaves  and  owners,  are 
the  subjects  of  discourse  and  of  command  in  all  these 
passages  which  we  have  been  examining. 

4.  The  absurdity  of  making  dou^o/;,  doulos,  mean 
slave,  may  be  illustrated.  The  word  "bread"  is  fre- 
quently used  in  the  Bible.  Like  douloz,  doulos,  it 
is  a  general  term,  and  is  so  used  as  to  imply  sanc- 
tion of  the  use  of  bread  as  an  article  of  food.  But 
"  bread  may  either  be  made  of  the  flour  of  wheat, 
of  rye,  of  barley,  of  corn,  of  oats;  or  it  may  be 
made  of  the  starch  of  the  potato,  or  of  various  other 
farinaceous  vegetables;  it  may  be  made  even  of 
bran,  even  of  spurred  rye,  than  which  few  poisons 
are  more  destructive  to  health,  or  fatal  to  the  life 


NEW  TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  209 

of  man.  Moreover,  the  same  may  be  fermented  or 
un fermented — debased  by  the  mixture  of  innutri- 
tions ingredients,  and  even  of  the  most  deadly 
poisons ;  but  however  made,  or  of  whatever  made,  it 
is  still  called  bread.  But  because  it  is  so  called,  are 
we  to  believe,  when  bread  is  spoken  of  in  terms" 
which  imply  commendation  and  sanction  of  its  use, 
"  that  among  all  the  kinds  of  bread  which  exist,  the 
very  vilest  of  them  is  had  in  contemplation"  and 
especially  and  specifically  meant  ?  "  Or  because  the 
use  of  bread,"  as  the  word  is  employed  in  the  Bible, 
is  impliedly  or  expressly  "sanctioned  in  the  Bible, 
sanctioned  habitually,  sanctioned  even  at  the  com- 
munion-table, are  we  to  believe  that"  "that  sort  of 
bread  which  is  known  to  be  destructive  of  health 
and  even  of  life"*  is  the  particular  kind  of  bread 
which  is  specifically  and  expressly  meant  and  sanc- 
tioned? Such  conclusion  would  be  preposterous, 
absurd,  and  ridiculous.  But  this  case  is  precisely 
analagous  to  the  use  of  doi>^o<;,  doulos,  servant,  in 
the  New  Testament.  "Bread"  is  a  general  term: 
dol>Ao<;,  doulos,  servant,  is  a  general  term :  vit  is  no 
more  absurd  to  single  out  the  vilest  and  most  poi- 
sonous kind  of  bread,  and  affirm  that  that  was  the 
bread  which  was  used  and  sanctioned  at  the  com- 
munion-table when  Christ  himself  presided  in  per- 
son, than  it  is  to  single  out  the  vilest  and  most 
villainous  kind  of  servitude  that  Heaven's  rolling 
sun  ever  shone  upon,  as  Conybeare  and  Howson, 
and  a  multitude  of  other  commentators  of  less  learn- 

*  free.  Nott,  D.  D. 

18 


210  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

ing  and  note  have  actually  done,  and  affirm  that 
that  was  the  particular  kind  of  servitude  meant  in 
all  the  passages  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  duties  of 
servants  and  masters.  Such  a  procedure  is  totally 
unwarranted,  preposterous,  and  absurd. 

5.  This  view  which  we  have  taken  of  the  sense 
and  usage  of  JouAoc,  doulos,  servant,  in  the  Pauline 
writings,  is  confirmed  by  direct,  incidental  testimony 
from  his  own  pen.  Very  fortunately  he  has  given 
us,  quite  clearly,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  his 
idea  of  a  servant.  It  corresponds  exactly  with  the 
Abrahamic  and  Jewish  idea  of  a  servant.  In  Gal 
iv :  1,  it  is  written :  "  Now  I  say,  That  the  heir,  as 
long  as  he  is  a  child,  differeth  nothing  from  a  serv- 
ant, though  he  be  lord  of  all."  No  man  in  his 
senses  would  ever  make  such  a  comparison  as  this, 
if  servant  meant  slave.  No  slaveholder  ever  thought 
of  making  such  a  statement  as  this,  as  to  the  equality 
of  his  slaves  with  his  children.  The  subjection  of 
the  child  and  heir  in  the  household  never  is  like 
that  of  the  slave.  It  " differeth"  from  it  totally. 
But  it  is  very  like  that  of  the  free,  unchattelized 
servant  in  the  Hebrew  household,  patterned  after 
the  old  Abrahamic  type,  with  its  "justice  and  judg- 
ment." This  was  Paul's  idea  of  servant.  This  is 
the  idea  that  we  are  to  attach  to  the  word  servant 
when  it  occurs  in  his  writings. 


NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  211 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

EXPOSITION   OF    1  PETER,  II :   18. 

THERE  is  one  other  passage,  which  is  found  in  the 
First  Epistle  of  Peter,  which  speaks  of  the  duties 
of  servants.  This  is  sometimes  quoted  as  belonging 
to  the  same  class  with  the  passages  which  we  have 
examined  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  On  account  of 
its  different  phraseology  in  the  original  Greek,  some 
writers  have  given  it  a  different  signification  and 
application.  Some  quote  it  as  referring  to  slavery, 
others  reject  it  as  having  nothing  to  do  with  slavery. 

We  will  endeavor  to  present,  in  few  words,  what 
we  understand  to  be  its  true  meaning  and  bearing 
upon  the  subject  before  us. 

The  passage  is  as  follows:  "Servants,  be  subject  to 
your  masters  with  all  fear ;  not  only  to  the  good  and 
gentle,  but  also  to  the  froward." 

1.  In  regard  to  this  passage,  it  may  be  remarked, 
in  the  first  place,  that  the  form  of  the  passage  is 
general.     The  pronoun  "your"  is  not  in  the  original 
text.     The   sense   may  be  expressed  in   this  way: 
"  Let  the  servants  be  subject  to  the  masters." 

2.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  that 
this  direction  is  found  in  immediate  connection  with 
other  general  directions  touching  the  relations  of 
life.     Before  it  we  have,  in  the  thirteenth  verse  and 


212  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

onward,  directions  in  regard  to  the  duty  of  obeying 
civil  magistrates.  Following  it,  in  the  next  chapter, 
wives  and  husbands  are  addressed.  The  passage 
which  we  are  examining  is  the  only  passage  in  this 
epistle  which  refers  to  the  duties  of  servants.  It  is 
natural,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  Peter,  in  this 
passage,  is  speaking  of  servants  in  the  general  sense : 
and  it  is  very  unnatural  to  suppose  that,  while  the 
whole  epistle  is  remarkable  for  its  universality,  he 
has,  in  this  passage,  singled  out  a  particular  kind  of 
servants,  and  laid  injunctions  upon  them,  and  left 
all  other  servants  entirely  out  of  the  account.  He 
speaks  of  civil  rulers  and  subjects,  and  gives  gen- 
eral directions — directions  applicable  to  all  rulers 
and  subjects.  He  speaks  of  wives  and  husbands, 
and  gives  directions  in  the  same  way.  It  would 
seem  almost  morally  certain  that,  in  speaking  of 
servants  and  masters,  he  would  use  these  terms  in 
the  same  general  sense.  We  certainly  think  he  has 
done  this. 

3.  But  the  terms  used  by  Peter,  in  this  passage, 
are  different  from  those  used  by  Paul  in  speaking 
of  servants  and  masters,  and  are  such  as  can  not, 
with  any  propriety,  be  referred  to  slaves  and 
owners.  The  word,  in  the  original  Greek,  which  is 
translated  "servants"  is  not  douXoi,  douloi,  which  is 
the  word  Paul  uses,  but  another  word,  (OCXSTGU,  oike- 
tai,}  whose  proper  meaning  is  one  living  in  the  same 
house,  or  house-companion.*  The  word  for  "masters" 
is  the  same  as  in  Titus,  ii :  9,  and,  as  there,  denotes 


•     NEW   TESTAMENT  SERVITUDE.  213 

the  head  of  a  family,  pater  familias*  This  corres- 
ponds exactly  with  the  Hebrew  idea  of  servant  and 
master :  servant,  an  attache"  of  the  household ;  mas- 
ter, the  family  head,  or  chief.  Peter,  being  thor- 
oughly a  Jew,  and  having  less  acquaintance  with 
Gentiles  and  Gentile  literature  than  Paul,  would  be 
very  likely  to  use  the  word  orxsr^c,  oiketees,  house- 
companion,  instead  of  douAoz,  doulos,  to  mean 
servant.  This  is  the  "true  Abrahamic-Hebrew  idea 
of  servant.  This  was  Peter's  idea  of  servant,  and 
hence  he  has  selected  words  and  language  in  the 
Greek  that  very  nicely  and  beautifully  express,  not 
the  Roman  or  Grecian  idea  of  servant,  but  the  pure, 
native  Jewish  idea  with  which  he  was  familiar,  and 
to  which  he  had  always  been  accustomed.  Failing 
to  notice  or  recognize  this  important  fact,  many 
writers  have  been  much  puzzled  to  understand 
exactly  what  Peter  meant  in  this  passage.  It  is 
very  harsh  and  arbitrary,  indeed,  nay,  utterly  inad- 
missible, to  apply  this  language  to  chattel  slavery. 
It  is,  also,  very  tame  and  narrow  to  refer  this  only 
passage  in  Peter's  epistle  which  speaks  of  the 
duties  of  servants,  to  domestic,  kitchen  servants,  as 
some  commentators  have.  Neither  of  these  inter- 
pretations is  at  all  satisfactory.  In  our  judgment, 
Peter  uses  the  language  he  employs  in  this  passage 
in  an  enlarged,  general  sense.  The  words  are  Greek, 
the  sense  Hebrew.  House-companion,  or,  rather, 
household-companion,  is  much  the  true  Hebrew 
idea  of  servant.  Peter,  being  altogether  a  Jew,  and 

*  Dr.  Robinson. 


214  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

having  had  altogether  a  Hebrew  education,  would 
be  very  sure  to  select  this  identical  language  to 
designate  servants  in  the  general  sense ;  while  Paul, 
having  more  acquaintance  with  foreign  customs  and 
literature,  and  writing  to  and  for  foreigners,  would 
be  more  likely  to  select  douAoz,  doulos,  a  term  in 
the  Greek  more  general,  and  one  that  would  un- 
equivocally cover  the  whole  ground  of  servitude. 
The  English  translators,  therefore,  were  entirely 
correct  in  retaining  the  word  "  servant,"  and  in 
giving  the  passage  a  general  signification,  as  they 
have,  in  our  English  Bible.  The  passage  unques- 
tionably refers  to  servitude  in  the  general,  right- 
eous, Hebrew  sense,  and  has  not  the  remotest 
reference  to  chattel  slavery.  It  relates  to  servants 
and  masters,  and  contains  no  allusion  whatever  to 
slaves  and  owners. 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  215 


CHAPTER   XXII. 

RECAPITULATION   AND   CONCLUSIONS. 

1.  IN  this  examination  of  the  New  Testament,  we 
have  seen  that  if  the  writers  thereof  had  conformed 
simply  to  the  proprieties  of  classic  usage,  their  use 
of  <5oy/oc,  doulos,  which  is  the  word  they  usually 
employ  to  denote  servant,  must  have  been  as  a  gen- 
eral term.     They  would  have  used  this  word  not  in 
a  specific,  but  in  a  general  sense,  corresponding  with 
our  English  word  servant. 

2.  We  have  also  seen,  that  if  they  had  followed 
Hebrew  ideas,  usages,  and  customs,  as  native  Jews, 
they   would  surely  have  used   doutoc,    doulos,    in 
a  general  sense,  and  not  in  the  specific  sense  of 
slave. 

3.  We  have  further  seen,  from  an  extended  and 
careful  examination   of  various   passages   in  which 
this  word  occurs,  that  their  actual  use  of  it  is  in  the 
general  sense — a  sense  corresponding  with  the  sense 
of  our  word  servant  in  English,  and  that  it  utterly 
forbids  the  specific  sense  of  slave. 

4.  By  a  similar  examination,  we  have  seen  that 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  never  modify  this 
term  so  as  to  give  it  the  specific  sense  of  slave.     Or 
at  least  that  it  is  not  so  modified  in  any  of  the  pas- 
sages that  give  directions  to  servants  and  masters. 


216  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

Without  such  modification,   such  sense  is  entirely 
inadmissible. 

5.  There  were  other  better  terms  at  hand  in  the 
Greek  language  to  use  for  slave,  which  they  might 
have  used,  and  which  they  were  not  afraid  to  use, 
as  is  manifest  from  1  Tim.  i:  10. 

6.  Furthermore,  we  have  seen  that  the  directions 
given  in  the  passages  where  servants  and  masters  are 
spoken  of,  are  perfectly  consonant  with  the  general 
and  righteous  relation  of  master  and  servant,  but 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  different  and  narrower 
relation  of  slave  and  owner :  that  they  elevate,  sanc- 
tify, and  make  safe  the  former,  while  to  the  latter 
they  are  totally  impracticable,  or  fatally  destructive. 

7.  Hence,  the  conclusion  is  inevitable  and  irre- 
sistible, that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use 
the  word  Souloz,  doulos,  which  is   the  only  word 
used  in  the  New  Testament  that  is  supposed  to  mean 
slave,  universally  in  its  general  sense — a  sense  cor- 
responding  with  the  signification  of  our   English 
word  servant,  and  never  in  the  specific  sense  of 
slave.     The  foregoing  considerations,  established  be- 
yond  all  contradiction,  make   this  conclusion  irre- 
fragable.    Our  English  translation  is  faithful  and 
correct  in  this  matter.     Wherever  the  word  servant 
occurs,  the  true  meaning  is  servant,  and  not  slave. 
So  of  the  word  master :  wherever  it  occurs  it  means 
master,  and  not  slave-owner. 

Now,  if  Paul  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment used  these  terms  which  we  have  been  examin- 
ing in  a  general  sense,  the  relation  which  they  had 


NEW  TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  217 

in  mind  in  the  use  of  these  terms,  must  have  been 
the  relation  of  servant  and  master,  and  not  the  re- 
lation of  slave  and  owner,  pirate  and  captive,  or  any 
other  such  different  and  specific  relation.  This  is 
self-evident. 

1.  It  is  also  manifest  that,  since  they  used  these 
terms  very  frequently,  and  without  modification,  and 
in  numerous  leading  instances  where  any  other  sense 
is  inadmissible,  they  always  referred,  in  the  use  of 
these  terms,  to  the  same  relation.     There  is  nothing 
in  their  use  of  these  terms  to  indicate  that  they  did 
not  use  them  in  a  uniform  sense  in  this  respect : 
namely,  as  always  pointing  to  one  and  the  same 
relation.     The   relation,   therefore,    of  servant  and 
master,  and  not  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner,  is 
always  the  relation  which  is  contemplated  whenever 
these  terms  occur  in  the  New  Testament. 

2.  Hence,  whenever  directions  are  given  to  serv- 
ants and  masters,  the  relation  assumed  and  recog- 
nized is  not  and  can  not  be  the  relation  of  slave  and 
owner,  but  that  of  servant  and  master.     In  all  these 
directions  this  is  the  relation  contemplated.     There 
is  no  avoiding  this  conclusion,  from  the  facts  and 
demonstrations  presented. 

3.  It  is  also  this  relation  as  a  right  relation.     In 
all  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament  which  give 
directions  to  servants  and  masters,  the  relation  im- 
plied in  these  terms  is  plainly  assumed,  and  recog- 
nized, and  treated,  as  a  right  and  proper  relation. 
It  is  in  vain  to  deny  this,  as  many  anti-slavery  men 
have  done.     The   directions  themselves   manifestly 

19 


218  BIBLE   SEEVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

contemplate  the  continuance  of  the  relation,  and 
that  it  may  be  righteously  sustained  by  both  parties. 
But,  since  this  relation  is  the  righteous  relation  of 
servant  and  master,  and  not  the  unrighteous  relation 
of  slave  and  owner,  its  full  recognition  as  righteous, 
by  the  inspired  writers,  is  altogether  proper.  This 
recognition  runs  through  the  New  Testament.  The 
relation  which  is  recognized  in  all  those  passages 
which  give  directions  to  servants  and  masters,  is  the 
relation  of-  servant  and  master,  and  that  as  a  right 
and  proper  relation. 

4.  But  it  must  be  that  relation  with  all  needful 
limitations,  as  we  have  already  seen.  The  relation 
of  servant  and  master  has  its  limitations.  These 
limitations  are  always  assumed  whenever  the  rela- 
tion itself  is  referred  to.  The  relation  must  be 
righteously  sustained.  All  relations  spoken  of  in 
the  Bible  have  their  limitations  in  the  same  way. 
The  parental  relation,  for  example,  is  a  right  one :  it 
is  everywhere  assumed  and  recognized  as  such,  in  the 
Bible.  It  has  its  limitations,  however.  It  must  be 
righteously  sustained.  As  the  man  hath  not  power 
in  himself  without  the  woman,  it  is  right  for  the 
man  to  seek  to  become  a  father  by  the  help  of  some 
one  chosen  woman.  But  the  Bible  would  not  sanc- 
tion his  seeking  to  become  a  father  with  every 
woman  whom  he  might  chance  to  meet.  The  pro- 
priety of  the  parental  relation  in  itself  would,  by  no 
means,  give  him  that  latitude.  It  has  its  righteous 
limitations.  So  has  the  righteous  relation  of  servi- 
tude— the  relation  of  servant  and  master.  The 


NEW   TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  219 

Bible  recognizes  its  propriety,  as  it  does  all  other 
right  relations  within  the  circle  of  these  limitations : 
but  never  outside  of  them.  This  is  assumed  and 
implied  in  all  the  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
which  give  directions  to  servants  and  masters. 

5.  Hence  there  is  not,  in  any  of  these  passages, 
the  remotest  sanction,  tolerance,  or  sufferance  given 
either  to  slaveholding,  or  to  the  system  of  slavery, 
or  to  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner.  The  relation 
spoken  of  is  another  relation  entirely.  It  does  not 
include  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner,  and  can 
never  be  stretched  to  embrace  it.  It  is  a  separate 
matter  entirely:  a  somewhat  not  implied  or  con- 
templated in  these  passages,  and  with  which  they 
have  nothing  to  do.  If,  in  addition  to  the  relation 
of  master  and  servant,  servants  should  be  forced  to 
sustain  the  relation  of  breeding  harlots  to  their 
masters,  this  would  be  a  matter  entirely  distinct 
from,  and  not  at  all  implied  in,  the  relation  of  master 
and  servant,  and  not  falling  under  the  same  rules. 
Such  servants  would  be  obliged  to  get  along  with 
this  extraneous  oppression  and  wrong  as  best  they 
might:  but  these  commands,  addressed  to  them  as 
servants,  would  have  no  application  to  them  as  har- 
lots. So  of  any  other  abuse.  So  of  the  relation  of 
chattelhood.  If  the  master  should  force  the  servant 
into  the  relation  of  slavery,  in  addition  to  that  of 
servant,  and  make  a  chattel  slave  of  him,  this  would 
be  a  new  and  extra  relation  not  implied,  or  con- 
templated, or  recognized  at  -all  in  these  directions  to 
servants  and  masters.  They  refer  to  the  relation 


220  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

of  servant  and  master,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  other  relation  of  slave  and  owner. 

6.  Hence  again,  since  no  such  sanction,  tolerance, 
or  sufferance  is  elsewhere  found  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, there  is  absolutely  not  the  least  shadow  of 
sanction,  toleration,  or  sufferance  given  to  slavery, 
or  to  slaveholding,  or  to  the  relation  of  slave  and 
owner,  anywhere  in  the  New  Testament.  Nothing 
nearer  to  this  is  sanctioned  in  the  New  Testament 
than  unchattelized  servitude,  always  guarded  by 
righteous  limitations.  Of  chattel  slavery,  the  New 
Testament  knows  nothing,  except  as  it  learns  from 
the  Old  Testament,  that  it  is  capital  crime.  The 
relation  of  servant  and  master  is  as  frequently 
alluded  to  in  the  New  Testament  writings  as  any 
other  relation ;  and  it  is  uniformly  so  alluded  to  as 
to  give  it  sanction  as  being  right  and  proper.  Ac- 
cording to  their  teachings,  this  relation  is  rightly 
sustained  when  servants  obey  the  directions  of  their 
masters,  and  when  masters  give  unto  their  servants 
that  which  is  just  and  equal.  This  makes  the  New 
Testament  consistent  with  itself,  and  consistent  with 
the  great  and  eternal  principles  of  rectitude  and 
right  which  are  laid  down  in  the  Word  of  God,  and 
recognized  in  the  human  intelligence. 

Does  any  one  inquire,  "  What,  then,  are  the  par- 
ticular teachings  of  the  New  Testament  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery?"  The  answer  is~easy  and  brief. 
The  Old  Testament,  from  the  beginning,  had  recog- 
nized the  relation  of  master  and  servant  as  a  right 
relation.  It  had,  in  the  Mosaic  code,  legislated  on 


NEW  TESTAMENT   SERVITUDE.  221 

this  subject  so  as  to  protect  and  do  justice  to  both 
master  and  servant.  The  relation  of  slave  and 
owner  it  had  set  down,  with  terrible  brevity,  in  the 
category  of  capital  crimes.  Ex.  xxi :  16 — "  And  he 
that  stealeth  a  man,  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be 
found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death." 
This,  under  the  very  shadow  of  Mount  Sinai,  while 
the  earth  still  quaked  greatly  beneath  the  footsteps  of 
the  Almighty  Jehovah."  Deut.  xxiv:  7 — "  If  a  man 
be  found  stealing  any  of  his  brethren  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  and  maketh  merchandise  of  him,  or  selleth 
him ;  then  that  thief  shall  die ;  and  thou  shalt  put 
evil  away  from  among  you."  As  capital  "EVIL" 
it  always  treated  it.  This  was  sufficient.  The  New 
Testament  finds  the  matter  right  there,  and  leaves 
it  right  there.  The  chattelizing  of  human  beings  is 
one  of  those  gross  crimes  condemned  by  every  pre- 
cept and  principle  of  God's  law,  and  by  every  senti- 
ment of  right  in  the  human  reason,  in  regard  to 
which  nothing  further,  particular,  and  special  needed 
to  be  said. 

According  to  Paul,  in  his  First  Epistle  to  Timothy, 
i :  10,  the  Old  Testament  law  on  this  subject  was 
made  for  those  who  perpetrated  the  crime  in  all 
ages  of  the  world.  This  was  enough.  Many  forms 
of  gross  crime  are  passed  over  in  silence  by  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  so  far  as  any  special 
or  particular  designation  is  concerned.  Piracy,  both 
as  a  system  and  as  particular  wickedness,  is  not  so 
much  as  once  named  by  them.  Paul  certainly  could 
not  have  been  ignorant  of  its  wide-spread  existence 


222  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

in  those  times.  No  special  direction g  are  given  to 
those  who  should  become  the  victims  of  piratical 
plunder  or  capture :  and  no-  special  directions  are 
given  in  regard  to  the  duties  growing  out  of  the 
existence  of  piracy,  or  the  relation  of  piracy.  Piracy 
is  as  much  a  system  as  slavery  is.-  But  the  very 
silence  of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  such 
gross  enormities,  especially  after  the  Old  Testament 
has  spoken,  and  the  voice  of  Jehovah  from  Mount 
Sinai  stands  recorded  there,  is  more  terribly  expres- 
sive than  any  additional  utterances  could  be.  This 
silence  proclaims  to  all  the  world  that  all  God  has 
to  say  of  chattel  slavery  is,  that  it  is  a  capital 
crime !  The  very  brevity  of  this  legislation  gives 
it  a  fearful  significance.  With  this  brief,  direct, 
unequivocal  legislation,  the  Old  Testament  disposes 
of  this  matter :  the  New  Testament,  fully  endorsing 
this  legislation,  in  1  Tim.  i :  10,  has  nothing  more 
to  add.  Without  multiplying  words,  both  Testa- 
ments promptly  shake  their  garments  of  all  com- 
plicity with,  and  sanction  of,  chattel  slavery.  Both 
alike  treat  and  condemn  it  as  capital  crime. 


THE    TWO   RELATIONS-  223 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

SPECIAL  CHAPTER  ON  THE  TWO  RELATIONS  (1)  OF 
SERVANT  AND  MASTER,  AND  (2)  OF  SLAVE  AND 
OWNER. 

A  LATE  writer  on  the  subject  of  slavery  remarks, 
that  "  The  Mosaic  statutes  respecting  the  relation  of 
master  and  slave  are  obviously  modifications  and 
amendments  of  a  previously  existing  common  law, 
and  are  designed  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the 
slave,  to  protect  him  from  oppression,  and  to  pro- 
mote the  gradual  disuse  and  abolition  of  slavery."  * 
Other  writers  have  seen  very  clearly  that  both  the 
Patriarchal  history  and  the  Mosaic  code  speak  and 
treat  of  servants  and  masters,  and  hence  of  servi- 
tude, as  an  existing  state  of  things.  This  has  been 
already  noticed  in  examining  particular  passages 
of  Scripture  in  the  Mosaic  writings.  The  Patri- 
archal history  refers  to,  and  speaks  of,  servitude, 
servants  and  masters,  as  familiar  matters,  well 
understood,  and  belonging  to  the  settled  arrange- 
ments of  society.  The  Mosaic  code  proceeds  to 
legislate  about  servitude,  servants  and  masters  as 
something  already  existing,  and  with  which  tha 

*  L.  Bacon :  Slayory,  p.  29. 


224  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

people  for  whom  that  code  was  given  were  familiar. 
Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  great  mistake, 
however,  of  the  quotation  above,  and  with  most 
writers  on  the  subject  of  Bible  servitude,  lies  in 
making  the  relation  involved  in  these  references  to 
servitude,  servants  and  masters,  the  relation  of  slave 
and  owner,  instead  of  the  relation  of  servant  and 
master.  It  has  been  already  fully  shown,  we  trust, 
in  the  progress  of  this  work,  that  the  relation  im- 
plied in  the  allusions  to  servitude,  servants  and 
masters,  in  the  Patriarchal  history;  the  relation 
contemplated  in  the  Mosaic  legislation  concerning 
servitude,  servants  and  masters ;  and  the  relation 
recognized  in  the  instructions  given  to  servants  and 
masters,  in  the  New  Testament,  are  one  and  the 
same  relation ;  and  that  that  relation  is  the  relation 
of  servant  and  master,  and  not  the  other  relation 
of  slave  and  owner.  But  we  wish  here  to  condense 
and  sum  up  the  argument,  and  present  it  in  short 
space  before  the  eye  of  the  reader. 

1.  It  is  abundantly  proved  and  admitted,  that 
the  words  themselves  that  are  translated  servant 
and  master,  and  the  terms  bought  and  sold,  as  used 
in  the  Mosaic  writings,  determine  nothing  as  to  the 
condition  into  which  those  were  introduced  who 
were  thus  bought  and  sold,  and  spoken  of  as  serv- 
ants. A  candid  and  thorough  examination  demon- 
strates this,  as  Dr.  Barnes,  Dr.  Cheever,  and  other 
learned  men  have  fully  shown.  In  Old  Testament 
usage,  these  terms  were  entirely  appropriate  to  free 


THE   TWO    RELATIONS.  225 

men,  freely  applied  to  persons  Vho  could  not  have 
been  chattel  slaves.  The  words  and  terms  used, 
therefore,  decide  nothing  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
persons  to  whom  they  are  applied.  These  terms 
are  just  as  applicable  to  free  servants  as  to  slave 
servants. 

2.  In  the  Patriarchal  history,  and  in  the  Mosaic 
code,  the   master   is   never   called   owner,  and  the 
servant  is  never  described  as  property  beyond  his 
services.      This  can  be  accounted   for  only  on  the 
supposition  that  the  relation  contemplated  was  the 
relation  of  master  and  servant,  and  not  the  relation 
of  slave   and  owner.     If  this   latter  had   been  the 
relation  contemplated,  it  would  certainly  have  been 
specifically  designated. 

3.  The  condition  into  which  servants  were  intro- 
duced, and  the   manner   in  which  they  were  held 
and  treated,  have  all  the  marks  and  characteristics 
which  belong  to  a  condition  of  free,  unchattelized 
servitude,   and  none  of  the   characteristics  which 
belong  to  the  peculiar  condition  of  chattel  slaves. 
This   fact,  which   is   incontrovertible,  really  settles 
the  whole  question.     For  the  real  question  is   not 
how  servants   in   the   Patriarchal    households,  and 
under  the  Mosaic  code,  came  to  be  servants  there; 
but  how  they  were  held  when  there:  as  free  serv- 
ants, or  as   slave  servants?     Now,  it  is  incontes- 
tible  that  Abraham's  treatment  of  his  servants  was 
Utterly  inconsistent  with    a   state   of  slavery,  and 
consistent  only  with  a  state  of  freedom :  and  that 


226  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

the  regulations  of  the  Mosaic  code  are  totally  incon- 
sistent with  a  state  of  slavery,  and  consistent  only 
with  a  state  of  freedom.  The  relation  implied, 
therefore,  in  both  cases,  must  have  been  the  relation 
of  servant  and  master,  and  not  the  relation  of  slave 
and  owner. 

4.  The  concomitants  of  slavery  are  totally  want- 
ing in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  Jews.     Chattel 
slavery  always   trails  along  with  itself  a  horrible 
gang  of  barbarous  accompaniments.     It  never  exists 
without  these.     These  never  appear  in  Jewish  his- 
tory.    Servants  are  never  called  slaves.     In  every 
other  nation  under  heaven,  where  servants  are  made 
slaves,  they  are  sure  to  get  the  title :  they  are  called 
slaves.     The  word  servant  never  came   to  have  a 
degraded    sense :    the    degraded    sense  which    goes 
along  with  the  word  slave,  and  which  it  inevitably 
would  have  had,  if  servants  had  been  slaves.    There 
is  no  selling  of  servants.     There  is  no  hunting  of 
fugitive  slaves.     A  civil  police,  to  keep  slaves  in 
subjection,   never    appears.     Slave    auctions    never 
appear.     A  slave  traffic  never  appears.     Slave  whip- 
pings never  appear.    Slave  rebellions  never  appear. 
The  degraded  slave  class  in  society  never  appears. 
In  short,  not  one  characteristic  concomitant  of  chat- 
tel slavery  ever  appears  in  all  the  history  of  the 
Jewish  nation.     The  relation  did  not  exist  among 
them,  and  hence   its   concomitants   are  not  to   be 
found. 

5.  So,  if  we  go  back  and  trace  the  history  of  the 


THE   TWO   RELATIONS.  227 

servi tude  which  descended  in  the  Hebrew  line  from 
the  Patriarchs  who  lived  soon  after  the  flood,  we 
shall  see  that  it  must  have  been  the  free  servitude 
of  servant  and  master,  and  not  the  servitude  of  slave 
and  owner.  It  came  down  from  a  period  when  chat- 
tel slavery  was  utterly  impossible.  It  has  been  de- 
monstrated that  in  the  Patriarchal  households  it  was 
free  servitude.  It  is  equally  manifest  that  this  same 
free  servitude  was  the  servitude  which  Moses  found 
among  the  Jews,  and  to  which  he  adapted  his  legis- 
lation. Precisely  the  same  language  is  used  in  the 
Patriarchal  history,  and  in  the  Mosaic  code,  in  de- 
scribing the  servitude  referred  to.  It  is  everywhere 
referred  to  as  one  and  the  same  thing.  In  its  origin 
it  must  have  been  the  servitude  whose  relation  is 
that  of  servant  and  master,  and  not  the  relation  of 
slave  and  owner.  In  its  descent  along  the  line  of 
Jewish  history,  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  ever 
became  any  thing  else.  This  is  the  relation,  that 
is  everywhere  implied  and  contemplated  in  the 
legislation  of  the  Mosaic  code  on  the  subject  of 
servitude. 

6.  Hence,  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  all  tres- 
pass upon  manhood  rights,  against  servants,  or  any 
one  else,  all  oppression,  in  every  form,  is  denounced, 
and  against  it  the  most  terrible  judgments  are  threat- 
ened. The  relation  of  servant  and  master  is  every- 
where recognized  and  acknowledged  as  right  and 
proper;  but  all  injustice,  all  trespass  upon  the  inal- 
ienable rights  of  man,  all  oppression,  is  rebuked  and 


228  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

denounced.  This  consists  with  the  righteous  rela- 
tion of  servant  and  master,  but  is  totally  inconsistent 
with  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner.  The  relation 
of  servant  and  master  consists  with  the  preservation 
of  the  full  dignity  of  individual  manhood  and  its 
inalienable  rights,  intact  and  inviolable.  The  rela- 
tion of  slave  and  owner  implies  the  subversion  of 
that  dignity,  and  the  destruction  of  those  rights. 
The  relation  of  servant  and  master,  therefore,  is  con- 
sistent with  the  denunciations  of  God's  Word  against 
injustice  and  oppression  :  while  the  relation  of  slave 
and  owner  will  not  admit  of  such  denunciations. 

7.  The  servitude,  therefore,  which  is  recognized 
and  sanctioned  in  the  Patriarchal  history,  and  of 
which  God  testified  that  it  was  according  to  justice 
and  righteous  judgment,  (Gen.  xviii:  19,)  and  that 
servitude  which  Moses  found  among  the  Israelites, 
which  he  regulated,  and  to  which  he  adapted  his 
legislation — were  one  and  the  same  thing :  the  servi- 
tude found  in  the  righteous  relation  of  servant  and 
master,  and  not  that  which  is  found  in  the  relation 
of  slave  and  owner.     To  this  latter  relation  Moses 
devotes  two  verses,  locating  it,  by  a  changeless  record 
and  statute,  among  capital  crimes. — (Ex.  xxi:  16, 
and  Deut.  xxiv:  7.) 

8.  In  perfect  harmony  with  all  this,  is  the  manner 
in  which  the  New  Testament  treats  the  same  subject. 
The  righteous  relation  of  servant  and  master  appears 
on  almost  every  page,  and  is  everywhere  recognized 
and  sanctioned  as  right  and  proper.    The  other  rela- 


THE   TWO   RELATIONS.  229 

tion  of  slave  and  owner  is  left  where  the  Old  Testa- 
ment leaves  it :  a  capital  crime.  As  such,  Paul 
alludes  to  it  once  in  1  Tim.,  i :  10.  It  is  said  to  be 
alluded  to  once  in  the  Kevelation.  Whether  it  is 
elsewhere  referred  to  in  the  New  Testament,  we  do 
not  know.  This,  then,  is  our  conclusion :  That  the 
relation  of  unchattelized  servitude  runs  through  the 
Bible,  and  is  everywhere  recognized  and  sanctioned 
as  a  right  and  proper  relation :  that  the  relation 
of  slave  and  owner  is  put  in  the  catalogue  of  6ther 
gross  crimes,  and  is  dispatched  in  two  or  three 
verses  and  is  there  left. 


230  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

REASON  WHY  SO  FEW  DIRECTIONS  GIVEN  TO  MAS- 
TERS AND  SERVANTS — ON  WHAT  GROUND  THESE 
DIRECTIONS  ARE  GOOD  FOR  SLAVES  AND  SLAVE- 
HOLDERS— SLAVEHOLDERS  AND  THE  PRIMITIVE 
CHURCHES. 

THE  reason  why  our  Savior  gives  no  specific  di- 
rections to  servants  and  masters,  as  such,  and  why  so 
few  such  directions  are  to  be  found  anywhere  in  the 
New  Testament  is,  that  the  Bible  everywhere  exalts 
the  individual  man,  and  always  contemplates  each 
child  of  Adam,  without  respect  of  persons,  as  an 
individual,  legitimate  son  and  heir  of  rationality  and 
immortality.  It  goes  back  of  society  distinctions 
and  prejudices,  and  counts  each  soul  a  child  and 
creature  of  God.  It  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  It 
commands  all  people  to  call  no  man  master;  and  it 
commands  them  to  honor  all  men.  What  it  says,  is 
addressed  to  every  child  of  Adam,  as  God's  creature, 
for  whom  Christ  died,  and  valued  by  him  above  all 
price,  as  a  rational,  immortal  soul. 

And  so  the  whole  Bible  is  addressed  to  masters, 
and  the  whole  of  it  to  servants.  There  is  not  one 
Bible  for  masters,  and  another  for  servants.  God's 
Bible  thinks  just  as  highly  of  servants  as  it  does  of 
masters,  and  places  them  both  entirely  on  a  level. 


MISCELLANEOUS.  231 

And  the  great  object  in  what  few  specific  directions 
are  given,  is  to  remind  both  servants  and  masters  of 
this  fact.  Both  are  put  under  the  same  law,  and  the 
directions  are  concluded  with  the  pregnant  declara- 
tion that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons. 

And  when  the  dust  and  cob-web  gatherings  of 
moth-eaten  superstitions  are  fully  wiped  off"  from  the 
Sacred  page,  the  whole  Bible  is  found  to  be  one  con- 
tinued thundering  cannonade  against  all  trespass 
upon  manhood  rights.  No  particular,  specific  direc- 
tions are  really  needed  either  for  servants  or  mas- 
ters, except  to  remind  them  that  the  great  law  of 
benevolence  applies  to  them,  belongs  to  them,  and  is 
the  rule  of  action  for  them  both.  And,  it  is  remark- 
able that  this  is  exactly  the  character  of  the  few 
directions  that  are  given  to  them.  Both  are,  alike, 
as  we  have  seen,  put  under  this  great  higher  law: 
masters  to  obey  it,  by  giving  to  the  servants  that 
which  is  just  and  equal;  and  servants  to  be  under 
the  direction  of  the  masters,  and  render  the  service 
due  cheerfully  and  uprightly.  These  facts  charac- 
terize the  directions  in  every  case:  the  great  object 
being  to  apply  the  great  higher  law  of  universal, 
impartial,  unselfish  good-will  to  the  parties  con- 
cerned. The  relation  of  servant  and  master  is  right 
and  proper :  that  relation  is  rightly  sustained  when 
sustained  according  to  this  higher  law. 

In  regard  to  the  other  relation  of  slave  and  owner  : 
(1.)  It  is  an  unrighteous,  abnormal  relation — a 
"violence"  to  all  law  and  fitness  not  to  be  tolerated 
for  a  single  moment.  (2.)  And  secondly,  all  the 


232  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

directions  given  to  masters  and  servants  are  in 
direct  conflict  with  it :  not  adapted  to  that  relation, 
nor  designed  for  it.  They  can  be  applied  to  it  only 
as  you  apply  water  to  fire,  to  annihilate  it. 

The  way  is  now  prepared  for  us  to  see  clearly  the 
ground  on  which  the  directions  given  to  servants 
are  good  also  for  slaves.  Most  of  these  directions 
are  good  for  slaves,  considered  as  servants  with  the 
super-added  oppressions  and  abuses  of  slavery  im- 
posed upon  them.  While  they  continue  in  this  con- 
dition, obedience  is,  undoubtedly,  expedient  and  wise 
for  them.  But  the  slave  is  not  under  the  least 
obligation  to  his  master  as  owner.  The  ownership 
itself  is  contraband  and  wicked,  and  imposes  not  the 
least  obligation  upon  the  slave.  Whatever  of  obli- 
gation there  may  be  in  the  case,  rests  solely  on  the 
ground  of  expediency,  and  not  at  all  on  the  ground 
of  any  thing  due  the  slaveholder.  In  the  relation 
of  servant  and  master,  the  servant  is  under  obliga- 
tion to  the  master  to  render  obedience  on  the  ground 
of  the  relation  he  sustains  to  him  as  servant.  In 
the  relation  of  slave  and  owner,  the  slave  is  under 
no  obligation  whatever  to  render  obedience  to  the 
owner  on  the  ground  of  that  relation.  No  slave 
under  heaven  owes  the  owner  a  single  particle  of 
duty,  or  service,  or  obedience,  or  respect,  because 
he  is  a  slave.  This  is  a  ground  upon  which  obliga- 
tion never  grows.  It  may  be  expedient  for  the  slave 
to  render  peaceful  obedience :  that  is,  the  slave  may 
be  under  obligation  to  himself  to  render  obedience ; 
he  may  be  under  obligation  to  the  general  good  to 


MISCELLANEOUS.  233 

do  so.  Just  as  a  captive  in  a  den  of  tigers  might 
be  under  obligation  to  himself  and  the  general  good 
to  "play  'possum,"  or  do  any  thing  else  not  in 
itself  wrong,  that  might  appear  expedient.  But  the 
tiger's  paws  and  jaws  would  impose  no  obligation 
upon  him  to  be  submissive.  And  just  as  a  victim 
of  the  Romish  Inquisition  might  be  under  obligation 
to  himself  and  the  general  good  to  be  passive  and 
obedient,  and  to  exhibit  a  Christian  spirit.  But  he 
would  be  under  no  obligation  to  his  tormentors  to 
render  either  service  or  obedience.  Neither  is  due 
to  them,  and  they  have  no  claim  upon  either.  So 
of  the  slave  in  regard  to  his  owner.  He  owes  nothing 
to  him  as  owner.  K  he  were  a  free,  voluntary  serv- 
ant, under  pay,  with  acknowledged  manhood,  then 
he  would  owe  obedience  and  service,  on  the  ground 
of  the  relation  which  he  sustained  to  his  master. 
But  this  relation  never  covers  the  other  relation  of 
slave  and  owner :  it  never  implies  any  portion  of  it, 
and  never  has  any  thing  to  do  with  it :  it  never 
carries  any  of  its  obligations  over  into  it. 

We  can  see,  also,  how  these  directions  which  are 
given  to  masters  are  good  also  for  slaveholders.  If 
slaveholders  are  to  be  contemplated  as  slaveholding 
masters,  and  their  slaves  as  servants,  then  these  di- 
rections apply,  and  they  demand  of  the  master  to 
give  unto  his  servants  that  which  is  just  and  equal. 
This  instantly  abolishes,  annihilates,  and  puts  a  final 
end  to  chattel  slavery.  The  first  "just  and  equal" 
thing  which  the  slaveholding  master  is  to  do  in  re- 
gard to  his  slave  servants  is,  to  cease  at  once  and 
20 


234  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    BE-EXAMINED. 

forever  to  regard,  or  treat,  or  hold  them  as  chattel 
slaves.  He  can  not  even  begin  to  obey  these  direc- 
tions without  doing  that.  And  that  is  immediate 
and  complete  emancipation  and  abolition  to  the  full. 
In  these  directions,  as  applied  to  slaveholding  mas- 
ters, is  to  be  found  the  only  perfect  abolition  precept 
we  have  ever  seen, 'except  that  one  given  from  MOPOS 
in  more  general  terms,  namely,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself."  If  slaveholders  go  into  the 
category  of  masters,  and  allow  their  slaves  to  come 
into  the  relation  of  servants,  then  the  Divine  Statute 
instantly  meets  them :  "  Masters  give  unto  the  serv- 
ants that  which  is  just  and  equal,"  instantly  annihil- 
ating the  slavery,  and  elevating  both  slaves  and 
slaveholders  into  the  righteous  relation  of  servants 
and  masters,  with  mutually  acknowledged  manhood, 
and  with  mutual  respect  for  each  other's  rights  as 
brethren  of  the  same  stock,  and  children  of  the 
same  Father.  This  is  God's  legislation  to  slave- 
holders considered  as  masters.  It  is  not  civil  legis- 
lation indeed,  but  moral  legislation  that  is  direct, 
perfect,  and  final.  There  is  in  it  no  dodging,  no 
circumlocution,  no  softening  of  terms,  no  artifice  to 
conceal  the  thing  intended.  It  is  simple,  plain,  per- 
sonal, conclusive,  and  final. 

And  God's  legislation  to  slaveholders,  considered 
as  slaveholders,  is  also  as  direct  and  conclusive.  It 
has  stood  upon  the  Divine  Record  for  all  people  to 
read  and  understand  for  more  than  three  thousand 
years.  "  And  he  that  stealeth  a  man,  and  selleth 
him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death." 


MISCELLANEOUS.  235 

We  can  also  see  what  ground  there  is  for  suppos- 
ing that  slaveholders  were  admitted  to  the  primitive 
churches.  There  is  just  no  ground  at  all.  "But 
were  there  not  'believing  masters'  in  the  primitive 
churches?"  Yes:  but  no  believing  slaveholders. 
There  is  not  a  hint  in  the  New  Testament  that  slave- 
owners were  admitted  to  the  primitive  churches, 
any  more  than  there  is  that  the  bread  used  at  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  made  of  spurred  rye,  and  wet  up 
with  a  decoction  of  hen-bane.  "  Believing  masters  " 
were  admitted  to  the  primitive  churches,  as  they 
always  have  been,  and  still  are,  all  over  Christen- 
dom. Believing  slave-owners  constitute  a  class  of 
God  and  mammon  worshipers  not  described  in  the 
New  Testament  history.  "  Believing  masters,"  who 
have  the  true  love  of  God  and  man  in  their  hearts, 
and  who,  consequently,  fully  acknowledge  the  equal 
manhood  of  their  servants,  and  give  unto 'them,  in 
all  respects,  that  which  is  just  and  equal,  are  always 
proper  subjects  for  admission  to  the  Christian  Church. 
They  make  good  members  of  it.  Slave-owners  con- 
stitute another  class  of  people  entirely.  We  have 
never  yet  seen  any  evidence  that  there  ever  was 
any  room  in  the  primitive  churches  for  any  such 
people.  Any  master  who  was  also  a  slave-owner,  in 
the  modern  property  sense,  who  should  come  under 
the  rules,  regulations,  and  teachings  of  the  primitive 
churches,  must,  of  necessity,  instantly  drop  his  slave- 
ownership,  and  be  simply  an  honest  master.  The 
door  was  altogether  too  narrow  to"  admit  the  former, 
but  readily  admitted  the  latter. 


236  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

SLAVERY  AS   A   "SYSTEM,"   OR   "INSTITUTION." 

PEOPLE  sometimes  confuse  their  minds  with  the 
sound  of  the  words  "  system "  and  "  institution." 
Somehow,  to  them,  the  application  of  these  words 
to  slavery  seems  to  change  the  whole  aspect  of  it. 
They  seem  to  have  the  impression  that  slavery,  as 
a  system,  as  an  institution,  in  some  way,  and  at 
some  time,  got  imposed  upon  our  Southern  country 
much  as  the  Almighty  imposed  night  and  day  upon 
the  earth.  They  unwittingly  imagine  that  it  is  a 
sort  of  necessity,  a  domestic  necessity,  an  institu- 
tional necessity,  an  organic  necessity,  so  imposed 
that  individual  action  and  responsibility  are  mostly 
absorbed  in  the  system.  As  a  system,  as  an  insti- 
tution, they  are  unable  to  see  how  it  can  be  touched, 
or  how  it  can  be  managed,  or  how  it  can  be  got 
rid  of,  till  its  proper,  providential  moulting  season 
'regularly  arrives,  in  due  order. 

But,  pray,  what  is  this  system  of  slavery  made 
up  of?  Why,  it  is  all  made  up  simply  of  individual 
slaveholding.  It  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than 
combined,  individual  iniquity.  There  is  no  system 
about  it,  except  multiplied,  individual  slaveholding. 
It  is  an  institution  of  multiplied,  individual  crime, 
just  as  piracy  is  an  institution  on  the  high  seas, 


SLAVERY   AS   A   "SYSTEM."  237 

just  as  licentiousness  is  an  institution  in  our  large 
cities,  and  just  as  theft  was  an  institution  among 
the  Lacedaemonians.  Any  iniquity  becomes  an  insti- 
tution when  a  good  many  people  perpetrate  it,  and 
seek  to  keep  each  other  in  countenance  in  the  per- 
petration ;  and  it  becomes  a  decided  institution  when 
the  civil  law  is  laid  under  contribution  to  regulate 
it  arid  sustain  it.  And  this  is  all  the  system, /all 
the  institution,  there  "is  about  slavery.  As  already 
intimated,  it  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  indi- 
vidual slaveholding :  it  is  all  made  up  of  individual 
slaveholding.  It  is  imposed  upon  the  slaveholder 
just  as  piracy  is  imposed  upon  the  pirate,  and  just 
as  licentiousness  is  imposed  upon  the  rake.  It  is  a 
deception  to  talk  of  it  as  a  sort  of  irresponsible 
necessity  of  things,  in  the  shape  of  an  institution 
or  system. 

But  multitudes  of  people  greatly  deceive  them- 
selves in  their  thinkings  and  sayings  on  this  subject, 
by  contemplating  slavery  as  a  system,  or  institution. 
A  system  is  a  soulless  irresponsibility:  so  is  an  in- 
stitution. Hence  the  Bible  never  speaks  of  slavery 
as  a  system.  It  never  tells  us  how  any  form  of 
iniquity,  as  a  system,  is  to  be  managed.  It  deals 
with  the  individual  man,  the  individual  soul,  and 
hence  with  individual  iniquity.  Amid  the  smoke 
and  thunder  of  Sinai,  and  the  fearful  quakings  of 
the  mount  beneath  the  tread  of  the  Great  Eternal, 
it  speaks,  face  to  face,  to  every  child  of  Adam  as  an 
individual  creature  of  God,  capable  of  hearing  for 
himself,  "And  he  that  stealeth  a  man,  and  selleth 


238  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death ! "  Here  is  universal  law,  and  yet 
so  couched  as  to  be  universally  particular.  The 
precept  is  as  broad  as  the  universe,  yet  so  individ- 
ualized as  to  lay  its  firm  grasp  upon  each  single 
soul.  This  is  Bible  wisdom.  Its  precepts  sweep 
the  universe,  and  yet  skip  no  man.  It  never  fires 
its  thunders  into  promiscuous  institutional  heaps; 
it  never  wastes  its  cannonades  upon  uninhabited  old 
castles,  in  the  shape  of, soulless  and  irresponsible 
systems,  but  always  takes  sure  aim  at  the  very 
heart  of  personal  and  individual  responsibility. 
Hence  it  is,  that  no  soul  of  man  can  escape  its 
omnipresent  and  personal  thunders  by  drawing  his 
head  into  the  dead  shell  of  any  system  or  institu- 
tion. It  is  not  the  shell  that  the  divine  thunder  is 
leveled  against;  but  the  individual,  living  man  in 
the  shell.  Let  no  one,  therefore,  expect  to  find 
either  murder,  or  theft,  or  idolatry,  or  man-stealing, 
alias  slavery,  or  any  other  form  of  wickedness, 
discussed  in  the  Bible  simply  as  a  system.  Its 
wisdom  is  vastly  better  than  that.  It  everywhere 
assumes  that  individual  and  personal  action  is  the 
only  thing  that  moral  law  has  to  do  with.  Hence, 
as  already  said,  its  precepts  sweep  the  universe,  and 
yet  arraign  each  individual  soul,  face  to  face. 


ORIGIN   OF   SLAVERY.  239 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

ORIGIN    OF    SLAVERY. 

OF  the  origin  of  chattel  slavery  we  have  never 
yet  seen  any  satisfactory  account.  Writers  are  apt 
to  assume  its  existence,  and  to  carry  their  assump- 
tion out  upon  much  forbidden  ground.  It  is  mani- 
fest, however,  that  two  things  must  have  been  true 
in  regard  to  the  origin  of  chattel  slavery. 

1.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  it  could  not  have 
existed   in   the  earliest  times.     It  could  not  have 
existed  in  the  family  of  Noah.     It  could  not  have 
existed   for  several   generations   following.     People 
might  have  served  each  other  in  various  ways  and 
forms,  but  when  the  people  were  few,  and  the  earth 
all  lay  common,  they  could  not  have  enslaved  each 
other.     This  is  perfectly  certain. 

2.  It  is  also  manifestly  true,  that  chattel  slavery 
must  have  come  into  existence  very  gradually.     It 
did  not  start  into  being  at  once,  either  as  an  indi- 
vidual thing,  or  as  a  system.     As  a  system,  it  could 
have  come  into  existence  only  with  the  progress  of 
society.     The  process  of  its  development  must  have 
been  gradual,   and   something  after   the  following 
order. 

At  first,  after  the  flood,  as  social  beings,  and  ne- 
cessarily dependent,  in  many  respects,  upon  each 


240  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

other,  individuals  would,  in  various  ways,  do  service 
for  each  other.  Mutual  assistance  belongs,  of  neces- 
sity, to  all  human  society.  The  Hebrew  word  that 
means  servant  can  be  distinctly  traced  directly  back 
to  this  sort  of  mutual  assistance  which  individuals 
rendered  to  each  other  in  the  earliest  times.  Its 
first  meaning,  in  the  verbal  form,  is  simply  to  labor, 
or  tqjdo  something.  It  meant,  next,  to  do  something 
for  another.  Service  to  each  other  belongs  to  the 
very  existence  of  human  society:  and  hence,  servi- 
tude, in  this  free  and  honorable  sense,  is  found  in 
connection  with  human  society  as  far  back  as  history 
can  be  traced.  As  the  race  multiplied,  after  the 
flood,  they  would  form  distinct  and  separate  families 
or  households.  These  families  would  enlarge  and 
become  tribes,  or  clans,  or,  if  you  please,  compound 
households,  like  that  of  Abraham.  This  would  give 
rise  to  Patriarchal  government;  for  government  of 
some  sort  there  must  have  been.  But  these  tribes, 
or,  more  properly,  compound  households,  with  Patri- 
archal rulers  at  the  head,  were  not  like  little  states 
in  modern  times :  but  were  enlarged  households,  con- 
sisting largely  of  kinsfolks,  with  other  individuals 
and  families  not  so  nearly  related,  associated  with 
them.  Such  association,  under  one  Patriarchal  head, 
would  involve  service  and  subjection:  a  mixed  serv- 
ice and  subjection,  partly  family  and  partly  govern- 
mental. Each  tribe,  or  household,  both  as  individ- 
uals and  as  a  whole,  would  have  numerous  wants  to 
be  supplied.  They  would  need  to  be  marshalled  for 
self-defense :  for  we  are  to  remember  all  along  that 


ORIGIN   OF   SLAVERY.  241 

human  beings  are  a  fallen  race,  and  that  selfishness 
reigns  wherever  they  go.  Being  thus  thrown  to- 
gether in  tribes,  or  embryo  nations,  the  various  ele- 
ments, offices,  relations,  and  services  of  organized 
society  would  be  gradually  developed.  The  head- 
man, or  chief,  would  soon  be  a  king,  standing  out 
with  his  own  particular  family  and  special  friends, 
by  himself.  Subordinate  officers,  clothed  with  more 
or  less  authority,  would  be  needed  to  direct  the 
affairs  of  the  clan.  Various  kinds  of  employment 
would  readily  come  to  be  separated,  classified,  and 
exalted  into  trades  and  professions.  There  would  be 
trade  and  traffic  with  each  other,  and  with  other 
clans.  There  would  be  all  sorts  of  service  to  be 
done:  the  Patriarch,  or  chief  having,  all  the  time, 
the  oversight  and  control  of  the  whole.  And  so  the 
whole  tribe  or  household  would  very  naturally  come 
to  take  the  name  of  servants  of  the  chief  who  was 
at  the  head.  This  would  be  the  natural  and  neces- 
sary progress  "of  things.  But  in  all  this  there  is 
nothing  like  chattel  slavery.  There  is  service,  and, 
in  that  sense,  servitude :  but,  as  yet,  chattel  slavery 
is  impossible.  The  individual  members  of  the  clan 
are  bound  together  simply  and  only  by  considera- 
tions of  mutual  and  personal  interest.  A  single 
breath  might  scatter  the  whole,  and  there  would  be 
no  remedy ;  as  a  gust  of  wind  will  scatter  a  swarm 
of  bees.  As  the  whole  heavens  are  open  to  all  the 
bees,  to  go  whithersoever  they  list,  and  no  spirting 
of  water,  or  drumming  of  brass  kettles  and  old  tin 
pans  can  help  it,  so  the  whole  earth  was  open  to 


242  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

all  the  individuals  of  the  tribe,  to  go  where  they 
pleased,  and  each  one  set  up  for  himself,  and  nobody 
could  hinder  it. 

In  the  progress  of  things,  it  would  be  an  object 
with  each  clan-household,  or  tribe,  to  enlarge  and 
strengthen  itself.  This  might  be  accomplished  in 
several  ways. 

1.  Each  tribe  would  multiply  within  itself,  giving 
rise  to  a  population  called  "sons  of  the  house,"  or 
"  the  born  in  the  house." 

2.  In  the  second  place,  it  would  seek  to  attach 
other  persons  and  families  to  itself,  either  by  per- 
suasion or  contract,  from  outside  of  its  own  circle. 
This  contract  was  made  with  the  persons  and  fami- 
lies themselves,  and  was,  by  no  means,  a  buying  of 
persons  as  property,  in  the  modern  sense.    Neither 
was  it  a  simple  hiring  of  services :  but  a  contract  for 
attaching  said  persons  to  the  tribal  household.    When 
the  contract  was  completed,  it  attached  the  persons 
entering  into  it  to  the  tribe,  or  household,  to  belong 
to  it,  to  do  service  with  and  for  it,  and  be  subject  to 
it,  and  have  citizenship  in  it.     Persons  thus  attached 
were  called  "  bought-with-money  servants." 

3.  Clans  would  seek  enlargement,  also,  by  con- 
quest :  either  peaceably,  by  negotiation,  or  forcibly^ 
by  warfare.     In  the  earlier  times,  such  conquest, 
even  by  war,  did  not  reduce  the  captives  to  a  state 
of  chattel  slavery.     It  only  secured  them  and  their 
possessions  to  the  conquering  clan,  as  subjects  and 
servants.     The  custom  of  reducing  captives  taken  in 
war,  and  captive  nations,  to  a  state  of  slavery,  arose 


ORIGIN   OF   SLAVERY.  243 

later.  In  Patriarchal  times,  captured  persons  and 
tribes  were  not  reduced  to  slavery.  They  were 
united  with  the  conquering  tribe,  and  subjected  to 
its  control  as  members  and  servants,  and  not  as 
chattel  slaves. 

As  human  society  progressed,  and  clans  and  house- 
holds enlarged  into  nations  and  kingdoms,  and  as 
laws  and  customs  became  more  and  more  fixed,  and 
the  earth  filled  up  with  inhabitants,  human  selfish- 
ness, always  keen-eyed,  began  to  take  advantage  of 
this  state  of  things,  and  rulers,  as  well  as  others, 
sought  to  use  the  ignorant  and  weaker  for  their  own 
advantage.  Along  with  the  progress  of  society  and 
nation-building,  this  trespass  gradually  progressed, 
till  it  absorbed  the  man  and  made  him  a  beast  of  bur- 
den— a  chattel  slave.  It  was  by  a  slow  and  long 
period  of  travail  that  chattel  slavery  was  born.  It 
gradually  grew  out  of  the  primitive  clan-servitude, 
which  was  wholly  free  and  voluntary,  and  which  was 
a  necessity  of  early  society. 

Now,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that,  with  the  pro- 
gress of  nations,  and  of  human  society,  chattel  slavery 
appeared  in  all  nations  outside  of  the  chosen  seed 
of  Abraham,  the  true  Abrahamic  nation.  In  Egypt, 
in  Greece,  in  Rome,  with  the  progress  of  those 
nations,  chattel  slavery  got  into  existence,  and 
extended,  and  became  worse  and  worse,  more  and 
more  complete  trespass  upon,  and  absorption  of, 
manhood  rights.  It  is  only  with  the  progress  of 
nations  in  civilization  that  slavery  can  reach  its 
full  growth  and  strength  of  villainy.  It  conies  into 


244  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

existence  from  free,  righteous  servitude,  by  a  grad- 
ual trespass  upon  manhood  rights,  till  it  absorbs  the 
whole.  Selfishness  having  the  power,  as  naturally 
proceeds  to  this  result  as  the  water  in  the  rivers 
proceeds  to  the  ocean.  The  germ  of  slavery  is  to 
be  found  first  in  trespass  upon  manhood  rights : 
when  this  germ  has  grown  and  extended  till  it  ab- 
sorbs the  manhood  itself,  you  have  the  perfect,  live 
viper,  clear  and  clean  from  the  shell.  To  accomplish 
this,  and  to  secure  a  strong  after-growth,  it  needs 
the  help  of  the  machinery  of  civil  law — of  civil  law 
in  an  enlightened  age.  This  was  the  history  of 
things  in  ancient  Greece,  and  in  ancient  Rome. 

But  in  the  true  Abrahamic  family,  the  Israelitish 
nation,  separated  by  the  Almighty  from  all  other 
nations,  chattel  slavery  never  existed  as  a  system, 
never  existed  as  an  individual  practice,  except  as  a 
capital  crime.  Servitude  never  advanced  beyond 
the  free,  righteous,  Patriarchal  type.  In  all  other 
nations,  servitude  ran  down  into  chattelhood,  fruit- 
ing out  into  the  grossest  systems  of  legalized  slavery. 
But  in  the  chosen  and  separated  Abrahamic  family 
it  was  restrained  to  the  model  of  the  Patriarchal 
households,  which  God  himself  pronounced  according 
to  justice  and  true  judgment. 

This  notable  result  was  secured  by  two  great 
influences. 

1.  Very  much  was  done  to  secure  this  result  by 
the  experience  of  the  Jews  in  the  Egyptian  "  house 
of  bondage,"  by  which  the  Hebrew  heart  was  effect- 
ually taught  to  know  the  heart  of  the  stranger,  and 


ORIGIN   OF  SLAVERY.  245 

the  heart  of  the  poor  and  powerless.  To  this  ex- 
perience God  often  appeals  in  warning  them  against 
oppression.  "Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stranger, 
nor  oppress  him ;  "  "for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a 
stranger,  seeing  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of 
Egypt."  "  Thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself." 

2.  This  result  was  confirmed  and  made  sure  by 
the  Mosaic  code.  This  code  found  the  free  servitude 
of  Patriarchal  days  in  existence,  as  an  elemental 
part  of  Jewish  society.  It  found  the  compound 
Abrahamic  household  still  in  existence.  By  its 
legislation,  adapted  to  this  state  of  things,  fully  pro- 
tecting both  servant  and  master,  it  forever  fore- 
stalled, and  effectually  prevented,  the  existence  of 
chattel  slavery  among  the  Jews,  except  as  a  crime, 
in  the  same  sense  as  theft  and  adultery  existed  as 
crimes.  This  is  a  wonderful  and  significant  fact. 
God's  revelation  to  Moses  killed  both  idolatry  and 
slavery  among  the  Jews.  Both  of  these  great  abom- 
inations lived  and  flourished  outside  of  the  Jewish 
nation,  but  had  no  foothold  within  it,  except  as  great 
crimes. 

This  is  what  became  of  slavery  among  the  Jews. 
Many  writers  seem  much  puzzled  to  find  out  when 
slavery  ceased  among  the  Jews,  and  how  there  came 
to  be  none  among  them  in  the  time  of  Christ.  The 
truth  is,  it  never  existed  among  them.  The  Mosaic 
legislation  in  regard  to  servitude  is  not  legislation 
about  slavery,  but  about  free  servitude.  This  is^  the 
servitude,  and  not  chattel  slavery,  which  existed  in 
the  Patriarchal  families,  and  this  is  the  servitude, 


246  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

and  not  chattel  slavery,  which  descended  in  the  Jew- 
ish nation.  The  Hebrews  carried  no  slavery  down 
into  Egypt :  they  had  none  in  Egypt :  they  carried 
none  out  of  Egypt :  they  had  none  in  the  wilderness : 
they  carried  none  with  them  into  the  land  of  Judea : 
they  never  had  any  there,  and  hence  our  Savior 
found  none  there  to  come  in  contact  with.  The 
Jewish  nation  stands  alone  in  this  respect.  All 
other  nations  went  right  on  in  idolatry  and  oppres- 
sion, in  the  shape  of  slavery  and  otherwise,  grinding 
the  people  under  foot,  and  making  a  prey  of  them. 
The  Jews  stand  alone,  kept  from  these  abominations 
by  the  wonderful  sojourn  in  Egypt,  and  the  still 
more  wonderful  revelation  of  law  and  truth  to 


This  view  of  the  case  suggests  the  reason  why  the 
Hebrew  language  had  no  specific  word  for  slave, 
and  none  for  slavery.  Says  Mr.  Barnes:  "The  He- 
brews did  not  make  distinctions  between  the  various 
kinds  of  service  with  the  accuracy  of  the  Greeks."* 
And  why  ?  We  answer,  because  the  things  themselves 
did  not  exist:  and  not  because  the  Hebrews  had  not 
sense  enough  to  find  words  for  what  existed  and 
was  common  among  them.  The  Hebrew  was  not  a 
meager  language.  It  had  more  words  in  it  than 
modern  learning  has  yet  been  able  to  find  out  the 
meaning  of.  It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  all  modern 
forms  of  servitude  and  slavery  existed  among  the 
Jews,  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  that  the  reason 
why  they  are  not  particularly  described  by  specific 

*  Scriptural  View*  of  Slavery,  p.  68. 


ORIGIN   OP   SLAVERY.  247 

terms  was  the  poverty  of  the  Hebrew  tongue.  By 
no  means.  The  presumption  rather  is,  that  not 
being  thus  referred  to,  and  not  having  words  to  ex- 
press them,  they  did  not  exist.  The  Latin  had  no 
word  for  steamboat;  but  who  would  think  of  attrib- 
uting this  to  the  poverty  of  the  Latin  language  ? 
No.  The  want  of  the  word  implies  ignorance  of 
the  thing.  Languages  always  keep  pace  with  the 
wants  of  the  people.  When  ideas,  customs,  arts, 
things  exist,  words  will  not  be  wanting  to  designate 
those  ideas,  customs,  arts,  and  things.  Languages 
always  have  words  and  specific  phrases  for  that  with 
which  the  people  using  the  language  are  familiar. 
Poverty  of  ideas  makes  poverty  of  language. 

Now,  the  Jews  were  a  world  by  themselves — iso- 
lated, separated.  They  had  plenty  of  words,  spe- 
cific and  general,  for  all  Hebrew  ideas,  customs, 
and  things.  Servitude,  among  them,  never  ran 
down  into  chattel  slavery,  and  hence  the  idea  of 
slavery  was  unfamiliar  to  Hebrew  thought.  The 
Hebrew  mind  never  got  sufficiently  accustomed  to 
slavery  to  be  at  the  trouble  of  having  any  specific 
words  to  mean  slave  or  slavery.  Among  the  Greeks, 
and  Eomans,  and  other  nations,  servitude  ran  down, 
with  the  progress  of  civilization,  into  chattel  slavery, 
and  hence  the  abundance  of  specific  terms  in  their 
languages  to  express  it.  The  Jews,  not  having  the 
thing,  needed  not  the  terms  to  express  it,  and  so 
had  none. 

This  view  of  the  origin  of  servitude,  and  of  slavery 
as  growing  out  of  it,  also  reveals  the  origin  of  the 


248  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

singular  ancient  custom  of  buying  wives.  "When  a 
man  of  one  household  wished  to  marry  a  woman  of 
another  household,  the  transaction  would  remove  the 
woman  from  the  household  to  which  she  properly 
belonged.  In  the  earliest  times  this  would  be  a 
serious  loss.  To  compensate  for  this,  in  some  meas- 
ure, the  man  was  obliged  to  pay  a  sum  of  money. 
In  those  days  persons,  as  members  of  the  household, 
and  not  as  property  in  the  modern  sense  at  all, 
were  of  the  greatest  value.  To  have  children,  and 
to  have  servants  to  increase  the  family,  was  esteemed 
an  object  of  the  greatest  importance.  To  balance  the 
gain  on  one  side,  and  compensate  for  the  loss  on  the 
other  side,  the  man  must  pay  money  before  the 
transfer  could  be  made.  After  a  while,  this  came  to 
be  the  universal  custom  in  marriages,  even  when  no 
transfer  from  one  tribe  to  another  was  made.  It 
had  no  more  to  do  with  chattel  slavery  than  mod- 
ern courtships  have,  in  which  the  money  goes  the 
other  way.  But  to  take  the  later  condition  of  wives 
in  heathen  countries,  which  is  not  much  better,  if 
any,  than  that  of  slaves,  and  carry  it  back,  and 
make  it  the  origin  of  the  custom  of  buying  wives, 
is  putting  the  cart  before  the  horse  truly. 


ONESIMUS.  249 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

ONESIMUS. 

ONE  of  the  most  marvelous  literary  wonders  of 
modern  times  is  the  pro-slavery  interpretation  which 
has  been  so  frequently  given  to  Paul's  Epistle  to 
Philemon.  Messrs.  Conybeare  and  Howson  have 
done  the  cause  of  slavery  great  service  by  the  man- 
ner in  which  they  have  interpreted  and  treated  this 
Epistle ;  for  which  they  deserve,  and  doubtless  will 
receive,  the  thanks  of  all  man-robbers  on  both  con- 
tinents. Without  blushing,  they  make  Philemon 
a  thoroughbred,  modern  slaveholder ;  Onesimus  a 
miserable,  "starving,"  runaway  "slave,"  "dragged 
forth"  by  the  Apostle  from  the  "dregs  and  offal" 
of  Canada  refugee  society,  and  "  surrendered "  by 
him  to  his  "  rich "  Phrygian  master,  with  all  the 
dignity  and  pious  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  land 
becoming  to  the  slave-hunting  officials  of  American 
democracy.  According  to  these  authors,  slavehold- 
ing  and  slave-catching  are  abundantly  sanctified  in 
this  Epistle. 

Now,  we.  need  not  say  that  this  appears  to  us 
to  be  both  monstrous  teaching,  and  monstrous  per- 
version of  the  Divine  Word.  We  think,  most  surely, 
that  the  evidence  is  totally  wanting,  either  that 
Philemon  was  a  slaveholder,  or  that  Onesimus  was 


250  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

his  slave,  or  that  St.  Paul  ever  had  any  hand  in 
"surrendering"  fugitive  slaves  to  their  masters. 

The  following  considerations  will  exhibit  our  rea- 
sons for  thus  thinking: 

1.  Onesimus    is   nowhere   called  a  slave.      Paul 
applies   to  him   no   other   terms,  or   epithets,  than 
such  as  he  is  accustomed   to  apply  to  himself,  and 
to  all  Christians.     He  calls  him  a  "  servant,"  but 
never  a  slave.    Since,  therefore,  Paul  calls  Onesimus 
a  servant,  and  never  a  slave,  the  presumption  is  that 
he  was  a  servant,  and  not  a  slave. 

2.  The  supposition  that  Onesimus  was  a  servant, 
and  not  a  slave,  satisfactorily  meets  all  the  condi- 
tions of  the  case,  while  the  supposition  that  he  was 
a  slave,  and  Philemon   a  slaveholder,  and   Paul   a 
slave-catcher,  involves  numerous  very  unhappy  in- 
consistencies and  contradictions. 

(1.)  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  a  poor  Phrygian 
slave  would  flee  from  his  owner  so  far  as  Onesimus 
was  found  from  Philemon.  It  appears,  from  the 
Epistle  itself,  as  well  as  from  Col.  iv :  9,  that  Onesi- 
mus had  lived  with  Philemon  at  Colosse,  and  that 
he  had  departed  from  him  to  Rome,  where  he  was 
converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  Paul.  Now,  Colpsse  was  nearly  or 
quite  a  thousand  miles  from  Borne,  in  a  straight 
line.  The  journey,  by  land  and  water,  would  have 
required  twelve  or  fifteen  hundred  miles  of  travel : 
by  land  wholly,  more  than  two  thousand  miles.  It 
is  extremely  unlikely  that  a  runaway  slave,  in  those 
times,  would  have  undertaken  any  such  journey  as 


ONESIMUS.  251 

that.  This  improbability  is  greatly  increased  by  the 
fact  that,  of  all  places  on  the  face  of  the  earth, 
Rome  was,  at  that  time,  the  worst  for  a  fugitive 
slave.  Nowhere  else  were  slaves  so  completely 
degraded  and  trodden  under  foot.  A  fleeing  to 
Rome,  as  a  runaway  slave,  in  the  days  of  Onesimus, 
was  much  like  the  fleeing  of  a  m6dern,  New  Jersey 
slave  to  New  Orleans.  We  are  decidedly  of  the  opin- 
ion that  Onesimus  had  too  much  wit  to  undertake, 
as  a  runaway  slave,  any  such  expedition  as  that. 

But,  as  a  free  servant — Philemon's  private  secre- 
tary, for  aught  appears — a  man  owning  himself, 
and  master  of  his  own  affairs  and  pocket,  it  was  as 
suitable  for  Onesimus  to  "  depart "  to  Rome,  as  for 
any  one  else.  If  he  was  an  old  bachelor,  as  was 
probably  the  case,  it  was  highly  suitable  for  him 
to  "depart"  "from"  Philemon  and  his  household! 
At  any  rate,  he  might  as  well  "depart"  "from" 
him  as  from  any  one  else. 

(2.)  The  manner  in  which  Paul  alludes  to  Onesi- 
mus, in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  utterly  forbids 
the  notion  that  he  was  a  fugitive  slave.  Col.  iv :  7- 
9 — "  All  my  state  shall  Tychicus  declare  unto  you, 
who  is  a  beloved  brother,  and  a  faithful  minister  and 
fellow-servant  in  the  Lord :  Whom  I  have  sent  unto 
you  for  the  same  purpose,  that  he  might  know  your 
estate,  and  comfort  your  hearts ;  With  Onesimus,  a 
faithful  and  beloved  brother,  who  is  one  of  you. 
They  shall  make  known  unto  you  all  things  which 
are  done  here."  Among  the  few  honorable  names 
of  leading  and  prominent  ones  in  the  primitive 


252  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

church  worthy  of  transmission  to  posterity,  Tychi- 
cus  and  Onesimus  stand  associated  together,  as 
"faithful  and  beloved,"  upon  the  Inspired  page. 
"  They,"  as  it  seems,  were  commissioned  by  the 
great  Apostle  with  messages  to  the  Church  in  the 
city  of  Colosse,  and  to  make  known  unto  said  Church 
all  things  which  were  done  at  Borne.  They  were 
both,  alike,  "sent"  on  this  errand  by  the  Apostle,  to 
the  Church  at  Colosse.  They  seem  to  have  prose- 
cuted the  journey  together,  bearing  the  Epistle  to 
the  Colossians :  Onesimus  carrying,  also,  a  special 
epistle  to  Philemon.  Now,  who  can  believe  that  the 
great  and  learned  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  would 
have  commissioned  a  miserable,  vagabond,  run-away 
slave,  who,  not  long  before,  as  we  are  told,  had  fled 
from  Colosse,  "a  thief,"  to  bear  messages  and  tidings 
to  the  Church  in  the  great,  and  wealthy,  and  popu- 
lous* city  of  Colosse?  And  who  can  suppose  that 
the  Church  would  have  received  such  a  messenger  ? 
Slaveholding  churches  have  mightily  changed  since 
those  days,  else  such  a  supposition  is  preposterous. 
But,  dropping  the  baseless  fancies  of  pro-slavery  in- 
terpreters, that  Onesimus  was  the  slave  of  Philemon, 
a  thief,  and  a  vagabond,  and  contemplating  him  as  a 
gifted  and  accomplished  person,  whom  Philemon  had 
employed  in  some  service  not  mentioned,  and  who 
had  departed  from  him  to  Borne,  either  on  business, 
or  from  motives  of  curiosity  or  pleasure,  and  who  had 
been  converted  there  through  the  instrumentality  of 
Paul,  we  have  before  us  a  suitable  messenger  from 

*  Xenophon  and  Herodotus. 


ONESIMUS.  253 

Paul  and  his  friends  at  Home  to  the  Church  in  the 
city  of  Colosse.  All  the  more  suitable  and  acceptable, 
from  the  fact  that  he  had  been  well  known  in  Colosse 
as  a  skeptical  fellow,  whose  unprofitableness  to  Phi- 
lemon, in  the  Gospel,  was  well  known  in  the  Church. 
(3.)  The  manner  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  Onesi- 
mus,  in  the  Epistle  to  Philemon,  is  utterly  inconsist- 
ent with  the  notion  that  he  was  the  man-chattel  of 
Philemon.  "  Whom  I  would  have  retained  with 
me."— V.  13.  What  business  had  Paul  to  think  of 
keeping  another  man's  property?  "Why,  Paul,  the 
Apostle,  might  as  well  have  retained  a  bundle  of 
bank  bills,  or  a  cask  of  Spanish  dollars  belonging  to 
Philemon.  What!  Paul,  the  Apostle,  who  was  of 
such  proud,  incorruptible,  and  almost  superfluous 
honesty,  that  he  would  not  even  receive  a  farthing 
for  his  preaching,  but,  at  this  very  time,  had  his 
hands  roughened  and  chapped  with  the  toil  of  tent- 
making  for  his  daily  bread ;  .  .  .  .  Paul,  who 
had  written :  Let  him  that  stole,  steal  no  more ; 
Paul,  this  Apostle  Paul,  put  his  hand,  as  it  were, 
into  Philemon's  pocket,  and  steal  from  him  at  least  a 
thousand  dollars — detain  from  him  the  most  sacred 
thing  in  the  shape  of  property  on  his  plantation? 
Even  the  intention  was  burglary."  .  .  .  .  . 
"  Paul "  should  "  have  said  :  Whom  I  would  not 
have  retained  on  any  consideration  whatever,  and 
never  thought  of  doing  such  a  thing,  but  have  ad- 
vertised you,  brother  Philemon,  that  you  might 
prove  property,  pay  its  charges,  and  take  it  away."* 


254  BIBLE   SEKVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

(4.)  "Thou,  therefore,  receive  him,  that  is,  mine 
own  bowels." — V.  12.  "  Receive  him  as  myself." — V. 
17.  '  Indeed,  father  Paul,  you  ought  to  be  ashamed 
of  that :  Onesimus  is  my  property,  to  buy  and  sell,  to 
work,  to  whip,  to  breed  for  the  market,  to  do  the 
service  of  a  slave.  God  forbid  that  I  should  put  the 
great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  to  such  uses  as  these.' 

(5.)  "If  he  hath  wronged  thee,  or  oweth  thee 
aught,  put  that  on  mine  account." — V.  18.  This 
clearly  implies  that  Onesimus  was  competent  to  con- 
tract debts.  It  does  not  imply  that  he  actually  did 
owe  Philemon  any  thing.  As  a  free  servant,  he 
might  have  owed  Philemon  either  service  on  unex- 
pired  time  for  which  he  had  been  paid,  or  money 
borrowed,  or  due  for  property.  Paul's  confidence  in 
Onesimus'  conversion,  as  being  genuine,  was  so  strong 
that  he  was  perfectly  willing  to  become  responsible 
•to  Philemon  for  any  debts  that  Onesimus  might  have 
contracted.  But  all  this  implies  that  Onesimus  was 
his  own  man,  and  not  the  slave  of  any  one. 

(6.)  The  allusion  in  the  16th  verse  is  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  relation  of  slave  and  owner. 
"  Not  now  as  a  servant,  but  above  a  servant,  a  bro- 
ther beloved,  especially  to  me,  but  how  much  more 
.unto  thee,  both  in  the  flesh,  and  in  the  Lord?"  In 
this  verse  Paul  recognizes  Onesimus  as  "a  brother 
beloved,"  to  himself,  in  the  Lord;  and  as  "a  brother 
beloved,"  to  Philemon,  both  "in  the  flesh,  and  in 
the  Lord."  He  was  brother  to  Philemon  both  in 
the  flesh,  and  in  the  Lord.  He  was  brother  in  the 


ONESIMUS.  255 

Lord  to  Philemon,  by  conversion,  and  only  after 
conversion.  He  was  brother  to  him  in  the  flesh, 
before  conversion,  and  without  reference  to  conver- 
sion. Now,  to  suppose  that  this  refers  to  the  rela- 
tion which  Onesimus  sustained  to  Philemon,  as  his 
slave,  is  sufficiently  absurd.  It  is  certainly  an  odd 
thing  under  the  sun  to  make  the  phrase,  "  brother 
in  the  flesh,"  synonymous  with  the  word  "slave." 
Surely,  this  can  not  be  the  sense. 

Some  suppose  that  Onesimus  was  actually,  by 
birth,  a  younger  brother  of  Philemon.  If  Philemon 
was  the  first-born,  and  Onesimus  a  younger  brother, 
according  to  the  universal  custom  of  ancient  times,  the 
place  of  Onesimus,  in  the  household,  would  be  that 
of  subjection  and  service  to  his  elder  brother,  who 
would  be  the  acknowledged  lord  of  the  household. 
Onesimus  appears  much  more  like  one  of  those  inde- 
pendent youngsters  who  dislike  the  control  of  an 
older  brother,  and  who  are  every  way  unprofitable  in 
the  household,  than  like  a  chattel  slave.  But  this  is 
largely  conjecture,  and  can  not  be  demonstrated  as 
fact.  Nevertheless,  it  can  not  be  proved  to  be 
false. 

But  it  must  be  that  the  phrase,  "brother  in  the 
flesh,"  indicates,  at  least,  that  Onesimus  sustained 
some  relation  to  Philemon  very  similar  to  that  of 
brother  by  blood  relationship.  This  language  can 
not  possibly  mean  less  than  this.  But  this  excludes 
totally  all  slavery.  If  Onesimus  was  Philemon's 
brother  in  the  flesh,  in  this  sense  he  could  not  have 
been  his  slave.  He  may  have  been  an  adopted 


256  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

brother :  he  may  have  been  in  Philemon's  service 
so  long  as  to  have  become  entitled  to  this  cogno- 
men: he  may  have  been  an  orphan,  taken  into  the 
household  in  early  life.  But  to  describe  a  slave  of 
a  rich  Phrygian  master  as  "a  brother  in  the  flesh," 
is  a  mockery  in  language  in  which  we  do  not  believe 
St.  Paul  ever  indulged. 

3.  The  pro-slavery  interpretation  of  the  Epistle 
to  Philemon  is  wholly  a  gratuity.  Is  it  said  that 
Paul  "sent"  Onesimus  to  Philemon?  In  like  man- 
ner it  is  said  that  he  "  sent "  Tychicus  to  the  church 
at  Colosse.  They  were  both  "sent"  together,  and 
on  the  same  errand.  But  this  did  not  imply  that 
either  of  them  was  a  slave.  Does  Paul  call  Onesi- 
mus a  "servant?"  This  no  more  implies  that  he 
was  a  slave  than  it  does  that  he  was  a  land  agent, 
or  a  horse-jockey.  Paul  calls  himself  a  "servant," 
and  he  was  a  bona-fide  servant  when  he  made  tents  at 
Corinth  under  master  Aquila.  Did  Paul  say  to  Phile- 
mon, "But  without  thy  mind  would  I  do  nothing; 
that  thy  benefit  should  not  be,  as  it  were,  of  necessity, 
but  willingly?"  If  Onesimus  was,  after  his  conver- 
sion, a  valuable  friend,  companion,  and  helper  in  the 
Gospel,  which  plainly  appears  from  what  Paul  has 
written,  and  if  Philemon  had  a  prior  claim  to  his 
friendship  and  help,  on  the  ground  of  past  acquaint- 
ance, as  is  clearly  manifest,  there  was  good  reason 
why  Paul  should  speak  as  he  did,  without  lugging 
in  slavery  for  an  explanation.  So  of  every  word 
and  phrase  in  this  Epistle.  A  pro-slavery  interpre- 
tation is  needless,  and  wholly  gratuitous. 


ONESIMUS.  257 

4.  "  No  longer  as  a  servant,  but  above  a  servant." 
Not  as  though   Paul  regarded   the  condition  of  a 
servant  a  degraded   one.      Not  as  though  Paul's 
mind  was  full  of  modern  pro-slavery  prejudice  in 
regard  to  laboring  people,  and  unbrotherly  notions 
as  to  caste,  and  such  like  abominations.     "  Above  a 
servant."    Before  his  conversion,  Onesimus  was  sim- 
ply a  servant,  an  unconverted   sinner,  a  child  of 
wrath,  a  servant  of  the  devil.     He  was  a  brother 
man,  to  be  sure,  but  an  unconverted  sinner,  with 
whom  Philemon  could  have  no  familiar  friendship, 
that  is,  no  such  friendship  as  is  implied  in  the  fel- 
lowship of  the  Gospel.     Being  converted,  he  comes 
at  once  into  the  new,  sacred,  and  high  relationship 
of  a  Christian   brother,  a  blood-bought  fellow-heir 
of  eternal  life.     He  is  now  to  be  received  into  this 
new  brotherhood  equality,  which  there  is  in  Christ, 
vastly  above  a  mere  servant  in  the  household.     We 
do   not  regard    this   as   direction   to    Philemon   to 
emancipate  Onesimus  from  slavery,  but  to  receive 
him  as  a  Christian  brother,  in  the  fullest  sense. 

5.  "Which  in  time  past  was  to  thee  unprofita- 
ble."    How?     Not  because  he  did  not  work  hard 
enough  as  a  slave,  as  some  of  the  commentators,  in 
their  multiplied  wisdom,  seem  to  indicate;  not  in 
any  pecuniary  sense,  for  there  is  no  particular  allu- 
sion to  that,  but   in   a   moral   and   spiritual   sense. 
We  do  not  think  that  Paul  was  troubled,  on  Phile- 
mon's behalf,  because  Onesimus  had  not  been  driven 
hard  enough,  as  a  slave,  to  come  up  to  the  demands 
of  the  divine  law.     We  do  not  believe  that  divine 

22 


258  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

inspiration  ever  cared  to  express  sympathy  of  that 
sort. 

Probably  Onesimus  was  a  skeptical  fellow,  of  a 
shrewd  mind,  whom  Philemon  did  not  understand 
how  to  meet,  and  who  greatly  tried  and  annoyed 
him,  both  by  rejecting  the  Gospel  and  caviling 
against  it.  It  seems  that  he  remained  impenitent 
and  unyielding,  proof  against  the  prayers,  and  argu- 
ments, and  exhortations  of  Philemon,  until  the  di- 
vine logic  of  the  profound  and  philosophic  Apostle 
of  the  Gentiles  met  him  at  Rome.  As  Paul,  his 
spiritual  father,  had  been  "injurious,"  before  his 
conversion,  and  was  plucked  as  a  brand  from  the 
burning,  and  made  a  chosen  vessel  to  carry  the 
great  salvation  to  the  Gentiles,  so  Onesimus,  the 
"beloved"  spiritual  "son,"  was,  "  in  time  past," 
"unprofitable,"  both  in  the  household  of  Philemon 
and  in  the  city  of  Colosse;  but  afterward,  through 
the  abounding  grace  of  God,  became  "  profitable," 
both  in  Rome  and  in  Colosse.  The  "  son "  was  so 
much  like  the  father,  that  Paul  could  well  say, 
"Receive  him  as  myself." 

6.  "  But  now  profitable  to  thee  and  to  me."  Not 
in  the  slave  sense,  not  as  Paul's  shoe-black  at  Rome, 
not  to  do  the  tugging  and  lifting  for  Paul,  so  that  he 
could  sit  all  day  long  in  his  rocking-chair  and  sing 
Psalms — but  profitable  to  help  in  the  Gospel.  Be- 
ing converted  from  his  ungodliness  to  the  Christian 
faith,  Onesimus  would  no  longer  be  a  hindrance,  but 
a  help,  in  the  Gospel,  both  to  Paul  and  to  Philemon. 
This  the  Apostle  urges  as  a  reason  why  Philemon 


ONESIMtTS.  259 

should  receive  him.  A  good  and  sufficient  reason 
truly,  infinitely  more  becoming  the  great  Apostle 
and  his  Christian  brother,  Philemon,  than  the  com- 
mentary-fancy that  Onesimus,  as  a  slave,  had  not 
worked  hard  enough,  and  earned,  by  the  sweat  of 
his  brow,  money  enough  for  his  owner! 

As  Onesimus  had  been  unprofitable  and  a  trouble 
to  Philemon  in  time  past,  he  was,  doubtless,  glad  to 
get  rid  of  him.  Paul  exhorts  Philemon  to  receive 
Onesimus  on  the  ground  of  his  conversion,  and  be- 
cause he  will  now  no  longer  be  a  trouble,  but  a  help 
in  the  Gospel.  As  a  skeptical,  caviling,  ungodly 
servant,  Philemon  was,  doubtless,  glad  of  his  depar- 
ture :  and  had,  probably,  made  up  his  mind  that  he 
would  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  him.  Paul, 
understanding  how  things  were,  as  was  fit,  addressed 
to  Philemon,  and  to  the  Church  in  his  house,  (v.  2,) 
this  Epistle,  to  introduce  Onesimus  as  a  Christian 
brother.  .How  could  Onesimus  have  appeared  before 
the  Colossian  Church  with  the  messages  which  Tych- 
icus  and  himself  were  commissioned  to  bear  to  that 
Church,  (Col.  iv :  9,)  without  such  letter  of  intro- 
duction, having  been  known  before  only  as  "un- 
profitable," and  opposed  to  the  Gospel  of  Christ  ? 

And,  after  his  conversion,  of  course  he  himself 
would  desire  to  go  back  to  his  old  master  and  friend, 
and  communicate  the  good  news,  repair  any  wrong 
which  he  had  done,  pay  up  all  old  scores,  and  help 
in  the  Gospel.  Paul  beseeches  Philemon  thus  to 
receive  him;  offering  to  become  security  for  Onesi- 
mus, either  till  he  could  make  payment,  or  that  ha 


2GO  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

might  be  immediately  released  from  all  entangle- 
ments, in  preaching  the  Gospel. 

Paul  had  so  much  confidence  in  the  sound  conver- 
sion of  Onesimus  that,  at  first,  he  proposed  to  en- 
gage him  to  help  in  the  Gospel  with  himself,  at 
Rome.  But  it  was,  manifestly,  important  for  him  to 
return  to  Colosse  and  repair  all  wrongs,  make  con- 
fession, and  do  justice  to  his  old  master  first.  Paul 
could  not,  therefore,  well  retain  him  without  Phile- 
mon's consent.  Therefore,  to  clear  the  way  for  his 
after  usefulness  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  he  "  sent " 
him  back  as  a  brother  beloved,  to  repair  all  wrong, 
pay  up  his  debts,  make  confession,  and  set  every- 
thing right.  Such,  as  we  understand  it,  is  the  spirit 
of  this  Epistle  to  Philemon. 


CRITICISMS.  261 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

BRIEF  EXAMINATION  OF  SOME  ANTI-SLAVERY  VIEWS. 

. 

SEC.  1. —  Unhappy  Translation  of  some  portions  of 
the  Bible  that  relate  to  Servitude. 

ONE  of  the  greatest  and  most  ruinous  mistakes  of 
modern  literature  is  the  pro-slavery  coloring  which 
the  venerable  translators  gave  to  certain  passages  in 
our  English  Bible.  That  these  passages  have  a  pro- 
slavery  cast,  can  not  be  denied  :  that  they  ought  not 
to  have,  is  equally  certain.  Readers  of  our  English 
Bible  almost  universally  get  the  impression  that  there 
was  chattel  slavery  in  the  Patriarchal  households, 
and  that  some  sort  of  provision  was  made  for  its 
continued  existence  among  the  Jews.  The  trans- 
lation is  calculated  to  produce  that  impression. 
"Whether  this  was  designed,  on  the  part  of  the 
translators,  we  do  not  pretend  to  say.  True  to  the 
original  Hebrew,  which  had  no  single  word  for 
"slave"  or  "slavery"  in  it — they  never  use  these 
words  in  the  translation.  But  the  translation  itself 
looks  just  as  if  the  translators  did  understand  that 
slavery  existed  in  the  Patriarchal  families,  and  was 
the  subject  of  legislative  regulation  and  sanction 
in  the  Mosaic  code.  In  numerous  passages  they 
make  an  apparent  distinction  between  "servant" 


2G2  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

and  "  bond-servant,"  when  no  such  distinction  exists 
in  the  original  Hebrew.  A  single  example,  out  of 
many  that  might  be  adduced,  will  sufficiently  illus- 
trate this.  "  Let  thy  servant  abide  instead  of  the  lad, 
a  bondman  to  my  Lord." — Gen.  xlvi:  33.  Here, 
the  Hebrew  for  "servant"  and  "bondman"  is  one 
and  the  same  word.  In  the  same  way,  the  word 
"sett"  is  so  managed  in  our  translation  as  to  make 
distinctions  looking  toward  slavery,  which  have  no 
foundation  in  the  original  Hebrew.  One  example 
will  suffice :  "If  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  thee, 
be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee." — Lev.  xxv: 
39;  verse  47:  "If  a  sojourner  or  a  stranger  wax 
rich  by  thee,  and  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by  him 
wax  poor,  and  sell  himself  unto  the  stranger  or  so- 
journer by  thee."  Here,  also,  the  Hebrew  for  the 
words  "sold"  and  "sett  himself"  is  one  and  the 
same  word :  the  proper  sense  of  which,  in  both 
cases  is — "  sell  himself." 

This  mistake  in  the  rhetorical  and  logical  tone  of 
various  passages  in  our  English  translation  has  been 
most  fruitful  in  errors  and  mischievous  results.  It 
is  the  fountain-head  of  an  immense  pro-slavery  cor- 
ruption in  the  literature  of  the  age.  Our  comment- 
aries, our  lexicons,  our  Bible  dictionaries,  our  school 
books,  our  newspapers — are  more  or  less  tinged  with 
this  same  vicious  coloring.  Bible  sanction  of,  or 
winking  at,  slavery,  derived  from  a  mistaken,  pro- 
slavery  translation  of  the  true,  original  anti-slavery 
Bible — runs  through  our  English  literature.  It  is  a 
base  habit  of  our  literature  to  assume  that  there  is 


CRITICISMS.  263 

some  sort  of  divine  connivance  at  slavery,  in  the 
Word  of  God. 

This  is  a  great  evil  under  the  sun.  Our  children, 
our  college  students,  our  people  in  the  mass,  old  and 
young,  are  thus  covertly  and  silently,  but  effectually, 
constantly  taught  erroneous,  pro-slavery  doctrines, 
and  that,  too,  with  divine  sanction. 

This  same  mistake  has  run  into  the  anti-slavery 
creed  of  many  anti-slavery  men,  and  has  greatly 
marred  and  paralyzed  the  moral  force  of  the  creed, 
and  weakened  the  moral  position  of  the  men  who 
hold  the  creed.  Both  the  creed  and  the  men  need 
to  be  pufged  of  this  weakness. 

SEC.  2.— The  Bible  Argument  of  Dr.  Hopkins:  its 
Strength :  its  Weakness :  its  Inconsistency. 

One  of  the  boldest  and  ablest  of  the  early  anti- 
slavery  advocates  in  this  country  was  the  redoubt- 
able Dr.  Hopkins,  of  Newport.  He  maintained, 
unequivocally  and  strongly,  that  the  owning  of 
slaves  was  SIN  against  G-od  and  man,  and,  as  such, 
he  poured  out  a  vehement  stream  of  eloquent  and 
powerful  argument  and  malediction  against  it.  In 
this  position,  in  itself  impregnable,  lay  his  strength 
on  this  subject.  But  his  otherwise  mighty  strength 
against  chattel  slavery  was  greatly  weakened  by  a 
single,  fundamental,  mistaken  admission.  That  ad- 
mission was,  that  this  intrinsic  and  great  sin  against 
God  and  man  had,  in  past  ages,  and  in  peculiar  cir- 
cumstances, received  God's  sanction.  Why  should 


264  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

not  people  be  slow  to  admit  the  sinfulness  of  Amer- 
ican chattel  slavery,  when  those  who,  in  one  breath 
denounced  it  as  such,  in  the  very  next,  admitted 
that  Jewish  chattel  slavery,  a  few  years  gone  by, 
had  received  the  divine  approbation?  And  why 
should  there  not  be  endless  jangle  among  lesser 
theologians  on  the  question,  Whether  chattel  slavery 
is  sin  per  se,  if  the  great  giant  in  theology  had  pro- 
nounced it  really  such,  if  not  in  terms,  and  yet  had 
admitted  and  expressly  taught  that  God  had,  at 
one  time,  given  his  direct  sanction  to  this  "  sin  per 
se?"  Dr.  Hopkins  evidently  saw,  very  clearly,  that 
the  owning  of  human  beings,  as  property,  was  sin 
against  God  and  man.  On  this  ground  he  justly 
denounces  it,  and  calls  upon  all  slaveholders  at  once 
to  emancipate  their  slaves.  Clear,  and  good,  and 
right,  and  strong,  so  far. 

But  here  the  Bible  pro-slavery  objector  encoun- 
ters him.  The  Doctor  courageously  sticks  to  his 
position,  and  undertakes  to  defend  the  Bible.  In 
this  defense  he  commits  a  fatal  mistake.  He  makes 
an  admission  that  has  already  cost  Christianity  and 
the  cause  of  human  liberty  too  dear.  Without 
thorough  examination  of  Patriarchal  customs  and 
Mosaic  legislation,  he  followed  the  pro-slavery  bias 
of  our  English  translation  of  the  Bible,  and  under- 
took the  hopeless  task  of  giving  good  reasons  why 
God  gave  the  Jews  the  privilege  of  committing  this 
particular  sin!  All  honor  to  the  clearness  of  his 
head  in  regarding  chattel  slavery  as  gross  moral 
wrong :  all  honor  to  his  moral  courage  in  denounc- 


CRITICISMS.  265 

ing  it  as  such :  all  honor  to  his  faith  and  piety  in 
defending  the  Bible:  but  it  is  not  necessary  for  all 
the  world  everlastingly  to  follow  his  grievous  mis- 
take in  this  latter  effort. 

We  are  very  anxious  that  the  reader  should  un- 
derstand precisely  what  this  mistake  is :  as  it  has 
been  copied  and  repeated,  times  without  number, 
and  is  still  put  forth  in  high  places  as  sound,  anti- 
slavery  orthodoxy.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  fol- 
lowing assumption,  in  Dr.  Hopkins's  own  words : 
"And  it  was  right  for  them  [the  Jews]  to  make 
bond-servants  of  the  nations  round  them,  they  hav- 
ing an  express  permission  to  do  it  from  Him  who 
has  a  right  to  dispose  of  all  men  as  he  pleases^ 
God  saw  fit,  for  wise  reasons,  to  allow  the  people  of 
Israel  thus  to  make  and  possess  slaves."  *  For  this 
supposed  permission  to  the  Jews  "  to  make  and  pos- 
sess slaves,"  he  gives  explanation  as  follows :  "  God 
gave  many  directions  and  laws  to  the  Jews  which 
had  no  respect  to  mankind  in  general;  and  this 
under  consideration  has  all  the  marks  of  such  a  one. 
There  is  not  any  thing  in  it,  or  relating  to  it,  from 
whence  can  be  deduced  the  least  evidence  that  it 
was  designed  to  be  a  regulation  for  all  nations, 
through  every  age  of  the  world,  but  every  thing  to 
the  contrary."  He  illustrates  and  enforces  his  de- 
velopment of  the  "wise  reasons"  why  God  allowed 
the  people  of  Israel  "thus  to  make  and  possess 
slaves,"  by  bringing  forward  the  command  given  to 
the  Jews  to  destroy  the  nations  of  Canaan  for  their 

*  Hopkins  on  Slavery :    Congregational  Board  of  Publication,  p.  664. 

23 


266  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

iniquities.  President  Edwards,  the  younger,  and 
multitudes  of  writers  since,  have  pursued,  substan- 
tially, the  same  course  of  argumentation.  It  is 
fairly  the  fashion  for  anti-slavery  writers  who  would 
escape  the  charge  of  infidelity  and  ultraism,  to  make 
the  same  assumption,  and  to  render  the  same  expla- 
nation. But  this  course  of  explanation  and  argu- 
mentation will  not  bear  examination. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  this  view  of  the  subject  en- 
tirely fails  to  satisfy  the  public  conscience.  Many 
accept  it  as  the  best  that  can  be  done  in  the  case, 
who  are,  nevertheless,  far  from  being  satisfied  with 
it.  Others,  in  large  numbers,  are  totally  dissatis- 
fied with  it,  and,  finding  nothing  better,  seek  to 
escape  from  the  whole  difficulty  by  rejecting  the 
Bible  altogether,  as  of  divine  authority.  It  can 
not  be  denied  that  this  identical  view  of  the  subject 
has  pushed  multitudes  clear  over  into  the  dark 
slough  of  infidelity.  Others  still,  whose  orthodoxy 
is  stronger,  stoutly  determine  that  this  explanation 
of  the  matter  shall,  per  force,  be  fully  satisfactory, 
who  yet  secretly  wish  there  was  a  better  one. 
They  do  solemnly  think  that  if  Dr.  Hopkins,  and 
other  great  and  good  doctors  have  been  satisfied 
therewith,  they  ought  to  be :  but  they  are  not  alto- 
gether, notwithstanding.  It  does  not  suit  the  public 
conscience  to  admit,  either  expressly  or  impliedly, 
that  Mosaic  divine  inspiration  was  less  luminous, 
less  correct,  and  somewhat  looser  in  regard  to  prin- 
ciples and  practices  than  divine  inspiration  of  a 
later  period.  Divine  light  ought  to  be  as  reliable 


CRITICISMS.  267 

in  one  age  of  the  world  as  in  another.  It  is  deeply 
felt,  in  the  public  conscience,  that  that  is  indeed 
tough  revelation  from  God,  which  constituted  the 
whole  Hebrew  people  a  nation  of  slave-makers  and 
slaveholders,  at  their  own  discretion,  as  long  as  they 
should  continue  to  be  a  nation  at  all ! 

2.  In  the  second  place,  we  venture  to  affirm  that 
the  main  assumption  in  this  explanation  is  wholly 
false.      We  deny,  outright,  that  God  ever  gave  to 
the  Patriarchs,  or  to  Moses,  or  to  anybody  else,  the 
right,  or  the  sufferance  either  to  make  or  to  hold 
slaves.     We  believe  it  to  be  an  entire  mistake  to 
suppose  that  God  ever  gave  any  such  right  to  any 
human   being.      We  think  that  this  can  be  fully 
shown. 

3.  But  this  explanation  of  Old  Testament  sanction 
of  chattel  slavery  has  other  fatal  objections.     It  in- 
volves principles  inconsistent  with  the  known  char- 
acter of  God,  and  the  established  laws  of  the  divine 
government.     We  propose  to  show  this,  by  showing 
that  the  parallel  examples  adduced  to  illustrate  and 
fortify  this  explanation  are  totally  irrelevant.     The 
strongest  of  these  examples  is  the  command  given 
to  the  Jews  to  destroy  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
of  Canaan  for  their  iniquities.     This  command  is 
quoted  as  similar  and  parallel  to  the  supposed  com- 
mand given  to  the  Jews  to  make  and  possess  slaves. 
Let  us  examine  the  two,  side  by  side,  and  see,  if  we 
can,  wherein  they  are  alike,  and  wherein  they  differ. 

There  are  several  circumstances  connected  with 
the  command  given  to  the  children  of  Israel  for 


2G8  BIBLE   SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

the  destruction  of  the  Canaanites,  that  need  to  be 
distinctly  and  carefully  noted.  (1.)  This  was  an 
express,  divine  command.  It  was  not  a  dubious 
conclusion,  inference,  or  guess  from  something  else, 
but  a  direct  and  clearly-uttered  command  from  Al- 
mighty God.  (2.)  The  reason  for  it  is  distinctly 
and  expressly  stated.  The  iniquity  of  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  land  had  become  ripe  for  their  destruc- 
tion. They  were  to  be  destroyed  directly,  and  by 
special  command,  for  their  wickedness,  just  as  other 
nations  were  to  be,  and  have  been,  destroyed  provi- 
dentially, for  the  same  reason.  Their  destruction 
was  national,  for  national  crimes.  It  was  to  be  spe- 
cial and  direct,  in  obedience  to  a  special  and  direct 
order  from  God.  (3.)  Hence,  the  principle  involved 
in  this  command  is  a  common  and  fixed  principle 
of  God's  government.  It  is  neither  exclusively  an 
old-dispensation  principle,  nor  a  new-dispensation 
principle,  but  a  great  principle  of  the  divine  gov- 
ernment for  all  time  and  all  nations.  God  does  de- 
stroy nations  providentially  for  their  crimes.  He 
has  done  it  in  ages  gone  by :  and  he  has  not  finished 
doing  it  yet :  and,  doubtless,  he  will  not  cease  doing 
it  as  long  as  nations  continue  to  forget  God  and 
become  hopelessly  wicked.  This  is,  universally,  the 
order  of  the  divine  government.  Individual  crim- 
inals also,  are,  ever  have  been,  and  ever  ought  to 
be,  punished  under  the  administration  of  human 
government,  which  is  a  part  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment. The  principle,  then,  of  this  particular  com- 
mand given  to  the  Jews  to  destroy  the  nations  of 


CRITICISMS.  269 

Canaan  for  their  iniquities,  belongs,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  to  God's  government,  and  is  good  and  righteous 
for  all  times  and  peoples.  (4.)  Furthermore,  being 
a  special  command,  it  was  definite,  stating  and  lim- 
iting exactly  what  was  to  be  done.  The  objects  of 
the  command  were  definitely  described.  The  exe- 
cutioners were  to  use  no  discretionary  power.  They 
were  to  do  a  particular  thing,  and  then  stop.  The 
command  was  to  be  immediately  executed  and  fin- 
ished. They  were  to  obey  the  special  order  fully 
and  promptly,  but  not  one  particle  of  discretionary 
power  or  privilege  was  given  them.  Now,  in  all 
this,  there  is  neither  break  nor  flaw.  There  is 
nothing  new,  peculiar,  or  strange. 

Bearing  these  things  in  mind,  let  us  look  at  the 
supposed  command  given  to  the  Jews  "  to  make  and 
possess  slaves,"  which  is  said  to  be  similar  to  the 
command  we  have  just  been  considering.  This  com- 
mand, if  found  anywhere,  occurs  in  the  twenty-fifth 
chapter  of  Leviticus,  verses  44-46,  and  is  as  follows : 
"  Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids,  which  thou 
shalt  have,  shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round 
about  you ;  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and  bond- 
maids. Moreover,  of  the  children  of  the  strangers 
that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy, 
and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they 
begat  in  your  land :  and  they  shall  be  your  pos- 
session. And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inheritance 
for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit  them  for  a  pos- 
session: they  shall  be  your  bondmen  forever."  This 
is  the  particular  command  which  has  been  supposed 


270  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

to  give  to  the  Jews  the  special  and  exclusive  right 
to  hold  property  in  man :  and  which  has  been  un- 
derstood to  be  parallel  with  the  command  given  to 
the  Jews  to  destroy  the  nations  of  Canaan  for  their 
iniquities.  But  this  parallelism  is  entirely  imaginary. 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  there  is  nowhere  in  the  Sa- 
cred Record  the  smallest  hint  that  the  Jews  were 
permitted,  or  directed,  to  procure  *'  bondmen  and 
bondmaids,"  which  the  Doctor  interprets  "  to  make 
and  possess  slaves  "  from  the  "  heathen,"  or  nations 
round  about  them,  as  a  punishment  for  their  crimes. 
The  assignment  of  this  reason  is  all  guess-work.  The 
Record  itself  gives  no  such  reason.  The  direction  in 
these  verses  is  wholly  unqualified.  Prof.  Bush  in- 
terprets the  phrase,  "  the  heathen  that  are  round 
about  you,"  as  referring  to  "  the  heathen  then  in- 
habiting the  countries  round  about  the  Holy  Land, 
but  not  to  the  Canaanites,  whom  they  were  required 
to  destroy."  This  direction,  then,  whatever  its  true 
import  may  be,  relates  to  "  heathen,"  or,  more  pro- 
perly, nations,  in  regard  to  whose  punishment  God 
had  said  nothing,  and  given  no  directions  to  the 
Jews.  The  reason  given  by  Dr.  Hopkins,  namely : 
that  the  Jews  were  "  to  make  and  possess  slaves  "  of 
the  heathen  round  about  them,  as  a  punishment  for 
their  crimes,  is  purely  imaginary. 

(2.)  In  the  next  place,  the  direction  in  these 
verses  gives  universal,  discretionary  power  to  those 
to  whom  they  were  addressed,  as  to  the  objects  of 
that  direction.  These  objects  are  not  defined  at  all, 
except  by  the  word  "  heathen,"  which  is  a  general 


CRITICISMS.  271 

term,  signifying  simply  "  foreigners."  They  might 
be  deserving  of  punishment,  or  they  might  not  be. 
They  might  even  be  a  Ruth,  mother  of  Messiah. 
But  who  can  believe  that  God  gave  to  each  indi- 
vidual of  the  Jewish  nation  a  divine  permission  to 
constitute  himself  a  special  minister  of  divine  ven- 
geance, to  execute  judgment  at  discretion  upon 
whomsoever  of  the  heathen  round  about  he  might 
please,  by  reducing-  them  to  chattel  slaves,  as  a 
punishment  for  their  crimes;  thus  opening  and 
establishing,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews,  a  general 
inland  slave-trade  outright,  to  all  generations  of  the 
Jewish  people?  But  you  must  believe  this,  to  its 
fullest  extent,  if  the  direction  in  these  verses  which 
we  are  considering  be  interpreted  so  as  to  give  the 
Jews  the  right  "to  make  and  possess  slaves"  of  the 
heathen  round  about  them,  for  the  punishment  of 
their  crimes.  The  direction  in  these  verses,  mark, 
is  not  limited  as  to  time:  it  is  not  limited  as  to  its 
particular  objects:  it  is  not  limited  even  as  to  the 
character  of  the  objects.  If  it  refers  to  "making 
and  possessing  slaves,"  it  constitutes  a  living  and 
perpetual  right  to  the  Jews,  for  all  coming  time, 
"to  make  and  possess  slaves"  of  foreigners,  except 
the  Canaanites,  at  their  own  individual  discretion, 
whether  deserving  of  punishment  or  totally  unde- 
serving. This  represents  God  as  giving  orders  to 
the  Jews,  at  the  very  outset  of  their  national  his- 
tory, to  destroy  the  Canaanites  absolutely,  and  to 
make  slaves  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world !  Believe 
this  who  can  ? 


272  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   EE-EXAMINED. 

(3.)  Again,  the  principle  involved  in  this  inter- 
pretation is  totally  inadmissible  in  the  divine  gov- 
ernment. That  principle,  remember,  if  we  take  the 
Divine  Record  as  it  stands,  is  discretionary  power 
"to  make  and  possess  slaves"  of  foreigners,  without 
any  reference  to  the  punishment  of  crime,  or  the 
character  of  the  persons  so  enslaved :  or,  if  we 
adopt  the  groundless  assumption  of  Dr.  Hopkins,  it 
is  general,  discretionary  power  "  to  make  and  pos- 
sess slaves"  of  foreigners,  for  the  punishment  of 
their  crimes.  In  the  former  case,  the  principle  is 
intrinsically  unjust,  and  at  war  with  the  great  fun- 
damental principles  of  the  government  of  God — the 
principles  of  righteousness  and  truth.  It  was  never 
good  for  the  Jews,  and  it  never  can  be  good  for 
either  Jews  or  Gentiles.  The  principle  involved  in 
the  command  to  destroy  the  nations  of  Canaan  for 
their  crimes,  and  because  their  crimes  had  made 
them  ripe  for  such  destruction,  was  a  good  and 
sound  one;  applicable  to  all  times  and  people,  con- 
stantly acted  upon  in  the  providence  of  God,  and  in 
the  administration  of  human  government.  But  the 
principle  involved  in  this  supposed  command  to  the 
Jews,  "  to  make  and  possess  slaves,"  at  will,  of  the 
nations  around  them,  is  utterly  base  and  unright- 
eous, in  direct  conflict  with  the  law  of  universal 
brotherhood,  and  admissible  to  neither  Jew  nor 
Gentile.  The  two  things  are  about  as  parallel  as 
the  spokes  of  a  cart-wheel — the  more  you  expand 
and  extend  them,  the  further  they  separate  from 
each  other. 


CRITICISMS.  273 

In  the  latter  case,  also,  we  venture  to  affirm,  that 
the  chattelizing  of  human  beings  is  altogether  an 
inadmissible  form  of  punishment  for  crime.  Crim- 
inals, even,  have  some  rights.  They  have  the  right 
to  be  punished  as  rational  creatures  of  God.  Devils, 
even,  have  this  right.  Indeed,  all  right  of  punish- 
ment is  based  upon  actually  possessed  and  acknowl- 
edged rationality.  All  criminals  have  the  right  to 
be  regarded  as  criminal  men,  and  not  as  brute  cat- 
tle. They,  of  necessity,  forfeit  many  privileges ;  and 
when  the  crime  is  a  capital  one,  even  life  itself;  but 
they  never  forfeit  their  own  characteristic,  rational 
creatureship,  which  God  himself  has  given  them  as 
their  changeless  and  everlasting  birthright.  They 
never  can  deserve  ill-will,  or  abuse,  or  beastly  deg- 
radation, from  any  being.  The  punishment  of  con- 
finement, of  hard  labor,  of  death,  may  be  laid  upon 
them  properly  and  justly:  but  we  protest  that  the 
chattelizing  of  human  beings  is  a  degrading  abuse 
of  absolute  manhood  which  does  not  lie  within  the 
circle  even  of  proper  punishment  for  crime.  Hence 
it  was  not  a  slip  of  Moses's  pen  that  he  forgot  to 
annex  to  this  passage  of  Scripture  from  Leviticus, 
which  we  have  been  considering,  as  the  reason  for 
what  is  therein  arranged,  that  "  the  heathen  "  were 
to  be  punished  for  their  iniquities  by  being  thus 
made  slaves  of  by  the  Jews  at  discretion.  There 
were  great  fundamental  reasons  why  Moses  would 
never  put  two  such  things  together:  and  it  is  cer- 
tainly a  great  marvel  to  our  mind,  that  so  many 
great  and  good  men  have  so  coolly  put  such  things 


274  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

together,  and  have  so  confidently  quoted  the  com- 
mand for  the  destruction  of  the  Canaanites  as  illus- 
trating and  confirming  the  illegitimate  alliance. 
Bad  logic  never  put  two  worse  bedfellows  upon  the 
same  bedstead. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  this  Hopkinsian  ex- 
position of  old-dispensation  slavery  is  inadmissible. 
It  makes  a  fatal  mistake  in  admitting  and  assuming 
'that  chattel  slavery  had  a  tolerated  existence  in  the 
Patriarchal  households,  and  was  made  a  subject  of 
legislative  regulation  and  sufferance  in  the  Mosaic 
code.  This  is  the  common  mistake  of  regarding  the 
free,  righteous  servitude  of  the  Patriarchal  house- 
holds, and  of  the  Mosaic  code,  as  chattel  slavery. 
The  explanation  built  upon  this  mistake  is,  as  we 
have  seen,  open  to  fatal  objections.  The  assumption 
is  a  groundless  one,  and  the  explanation  is  a  bad 
one  and  both  ought  to  be  abandoned. 


CRITICISMS.  275 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

BRIEF   CRITICISMS   UPON  SOME  OTHER  ANTI-SLAVERY 
VIEWS. 

DURING  the  last  few  years  several  attempts  have 
been  made  to  answer  the  inquiry :  "  How  does  the 
Bible  treat  slavery?  "  These  attempts  have  elicited 
much  important  truth  :  but  some  of  them  have  been 
signal  examples  of  unfortunate  statement  and  bad 
logic.  They  have  dishonored  the  Bible,  and  weak- 
ened the  hands  of  anti-slavery  men.  Some  of  these 
mistaken  views  have  been  widely  disseminated  under 
the  sanction  of  great  and  honored  names ;  and,  for 
the  want  of  better  views,  they  have  been  extensively 
received. 

Certain  writers,  of  high  authority  in  other  mat- 
ters, maintain  that  it  is  the  policy  of  the  Bible  to 
treat  slavery  indirectly,  covertly  seeking  its  over- 
throw as  an  evil,  by  laying  down  great  principles 
designed  to  work  its  extinction  gradually,  and  seek- 
ing, meanwhile,  to  regulate  and  restrain  it.  They 
say  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible — Old  Testament 
and  New — were  quite  "familiar"  with  slavery;  that 
"they  do  not  often  refer  to"  it;  that  they  "nowhere 
represent  slavery  as  a  divine  institution,"  and  "  no- 
where approve  of  it  or  give  it  their  sanction ;"  that 
they  "lay  down  truths  and  principles  which  are 


276  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

directly  opposed  to  all  slavery;"  that  while  the  in- 
spired writers  "  suffered  "  the  existence  of  slavery, 
they  sought  "  to  regulate  and  restrain "  it — not 
"aiming"  "at  the  ultimate  extinction  of  slavery" 
"  suddenly,  and  by  positive  enactment — but  gradu- 
ally." They  argue  that  this  was  the  policy  of  the 
Mosaic  code,  of  the  old  prophets,  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  of  the  apostles,  in  regard  to  slavery. 

This  view  of  Bible  treatment  of  slavery,  as  the 
reader  will  at  once  see,  is  all  necessitated  by  the 
mistake  that  the  legislation  of  the  Bible  concerning 
free,  or  common  servitude,  was  legislation  concern- 
ing chattel  slavery.  Take  this  mistake  from  under- 
neath this  view,  and  the  view  itself,  with  all  its 
argument,  is  no  longer  needed. 

This  view  assumes  that  the  servitude  of  the  Pa- 
triarchal households  was  chattel  slavery.  This,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  an  entire  mistake. 

This  view  assumes  that  the  legislation  of  the  Mo- 
saic code  concerning  free  servitude  was  legislation 
concerning  chattel  slavery.  This,  also,  is  wholly  a 
mistake.  As  we  have  seen,  chattel  slavery  had  no 
place  in  the  Mosaic  code,  except  as  a  crime  to  be 
punished. 

_  This  view  assumes,  also,  that  the  special  instruc- 
tions of  the  New  Testament  in  regard  to  servants 
and  masters  are  instructions  concerning  slaves  and 
their  owners.  This,  too,  is  all  mistake. 

The  argument  involved  in  this  view  is  also  sadly 
at  fault.  This  whole  argument  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  the  legislation  of  the  Bible,  and 


CRITICISMS.  277 

especially  of  the  Mosaic  code,  concerning  common 
servitude,  assumed  to  be  concerning  chattel  slavery 
— is  merely  regulating  and  restraining  legislation 
respecting  a  known  and  admitted  evil,  for  its  ulti- 
mate removal. 

But  this  assumption,  so  freely  and  unwittingly 
taken  for  granted  by  so  many  writers,  is  altogether 
a  groundless  one.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  laws 
in  the  Mosaic  code -respecting  common  servitude, 
which  are  supposed,  in  the  argument  under  consid- 
eration, to  refer  to  chattel  slavery — are  positive  en- 
actments :  instituting,  fully  approving,  and  sanction- 
ing that  which  is  enacted.  They  bear  no  marks  of 
enactments  for  the  mere  sufferance,  restriction  and 
regulation  of  that  which  is  the  subject-matter  of 
enactment.  They  are  direct,  positive,  institutive. 
Any  individual,  by  looking,  can  see  that  this  is  the 
character  of  the  enactment  found  in  Ex.  xxi:  2-6, 
and  which  has  been  supposed  to  refer  to  the  enslave- 
ment of  Jews  by  their  brethren ;  and  which  does  so 
refer,  as  much  as  any  passage  in  the  Mosaic  code. 
Just  read  the  passage,  kind  reader,  and  see  if  you 
can  find  any  thing  else  in  it  but  direct,  positive  enact- 
ment, giving  full  sanction  to  what  is  therein  enacted. 
"  If  thou  buy  an  Hebrew  servant,  six  years  he  shall 
serve;  and  in  the  seventh  he  shall  go  out  free  for 
nothing.  If  he  came  in  by  himself,  he  shall  go  out 
by  himself;  if  he  were  married,  then  his  wife  shall 
go  out  with  him.  If  his  master  have  given  him  a 
wife,  and  she  have  borne  him  sons  or  daughters :  the 
wife  and  her  children  shall  be  her  master's,  and  he 


278  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

shall  go  out  by  himself.  And  if  the  servant  shall 
plainly  say,  I  love  my  master,  my  wife,  and  my  chil- 
dren, I  will  not  go  out  free :  Then  his  master  shall 
bring  him  unto  the  judges;  he  shall  also  bring  him 
to  the  door,  or  unto  the  door-post:  and  his  master 
shall  bore  his  ear  through  with  an  awl,  and  he  shall 
serve  him  forever."  Here,  manifestly,  provision  is 
made  for  the  perpetuity  of  that  which  is  the  subject 
of  this  enactment.  It  is  not  contemplated  as  an  evil 
at  all :  it  is  cut  off,  by  the  terms  of  the  statute  itself, 
from  the  reach  of  any  "  great  truths  and  principles  " 
that  might  be  supposed  to  militate  against  it. 

So  the  other  passage  in  Lev.  xxv :  44-46,  which 
has  been  supposed  to  refer  to  the  enslavement  of 
foreigners  by  the  Jews — and  which  does  so  refer,  if 
any  passage  in  the  Mosaic  code  does — is  a  direct  and 
positive  regulation,  instituting,  by  express  and  direct 
enactment,  for  the  Jews,  and  granting  to  them  the 
right  to  do  forever  that  which  is  therein  spoken  of 
and  provided  for.  Do  read  this  statute  too,  patient 
reader.  "Both  thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids, 
which  thou  shalt  have,  shall  be  of  the  heathen  that 
are  round  about  you;  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bond- 
men and  bondmaids.  Moreover,  of  the  children  of 
the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them 
shall  ye  buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you, 
which  they  begat  in  your  land;  and  they  shall  be 
your  possession :  And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  in- 
heritance for  your  children  after  you,  to  inherit  them 
for  a  possession ;  they  shall  be  your  bondmen  for- 
ever." Nothing  can  be  more  direct  and  positive. 


CEITICISMS.  279 

Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  what  is  here 
enacted  was  expressly  made  a  permanent  law  of  the 
Jewish  economy.  If  the  thing  enacted  was  "slav- 
ery," then  we  have,  in  this  passage,  express  and 
positive  institution  of  slavery,  as  a  permanent  ar- 
rangement, by  divine  authority  and  with  direct 
divine  sanction,  and  so  put  forever  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  effect  of  great  abstract  "  truths  and 
principles."  There,  is  not  one  characteristic  of 
merely  "  restraining  and  regulating  "  legislation  in 
this  whole  statute :  but  every  mark  of  direct  and 
positive  enactment,  expressly  instituting  and  render- 
ing permanent  that  which  is  enacted.  If  that  thing 
is  "  slavery,"  then  the  Bible  does  institute,  establish, 
and  sanction  slavery. 

More  than  this,  even.  If  this  statute  relates  to 
slavery,  it  is  both  a  constituting  and  an  anticipatory 
law.  It  was  a  law  in  advance  of  the  existence  of 
that  which  is  enacted  by  the  law.  For  Moses  ex- 
pressly says,  (Gen.  xlvi :  27,)  "  All  the  souls  of  the 
house  of  Jacob  which  came  into  Egypt  were  three 
score  and  fifteen  souls."  Stephen,  Acts  vii:  14, 
describes  these  as  "kindred."  Surely,  therefore,  no 
one  will  pretend  that  there  were  foreign  slaves  in 
Jacob's  household  when  he  and  his  family  went  down 
into  Egypt.  So,  after  the  Israelites  were  in  Egypt, 
from  Joseph  to  Moses,  there  is  not  the  least  shadow 
of  evidence  that  they  held  foreign  slaves,  or  any 
other  slaves.  Indeed,  one  great  object  of  Divine 
Providence  in  permitting  them  to  be  "oppressed" 


280  BIBLE  SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

in  Egypt,  was  to  teach  them  to  abhor  all  oppression 
and  all  unrighteous  bondage,  and  to  "  know  the  heart 
of  the  stranger."  It  is  preposterous  in  the  extreme, 
not  to  say  shockingly  blasphemous,  to  suppose  that 
Moses  led  out  of  Egypt  a  great  company  of  slave- 
holders, with  a  gang  of  slaves  at  their  heels;  and 
that  while  God  poured  out  his  terrible  judgments 
upon  the  Egyptians  for  treating  the  Jews  as  slaves, 
he,  at  the  same  moment,  protected  the  Jews  in  the 
perpetration  of  precisely  the  same  crime !  The  Jews, 
then,  came  out  of  Egypt  free  from  foreign  slaves — 
free  from  slaves  of  all  sorts — free  from  slavery.  This 
law,  therefore,  in  Leviticus,  did  not  find  any  "slav- 
ery in  existence  established  by  law "  to  regulate. 
Hence,  if  it  relates  to  slavery,  it  is  both  an  origin- 
ating, instituting  enactment,  and  an  enactment  in 
anticipation.  It  positively  establishes  that  which 
did  not  previously  exist. 

The  assumption,  therefore,  that  slavery  is  nowhere 
expressly  instituted  or  approved  in  the  Bible,  is 
entirely  incorrect,  provided  this  law  in  Leviticus 
relates  to  slavery.  But  the  argument  under  con- 
sideration takes  it  for  granted  that  it  does  relate 
to  slavery.  If  it  does  relate  to  slavery,  then  it 
expressly  established  it,  and  made  it  permanent, 
among  the  Jews  forever. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  law  does  not  relate  to 
slavery,  then  all  this  talk  about  Moses's  "  regulating 
and  restraining  "  slavery  is  irrelevant  and  idle.  It 
was  something  else  that  he  regulated,  and  not  slav- 


CRITICISMS.  281 

ery:  something  that  would  bear  to  be  established, 
approved,  and  made  permanent  by  the  positive  legis- 
lation of  the  Almighty. 

If  this  legislation  relates  to  free,  righteous  servi- 
tude, as  we  think  we  have  fully  shown  that  it  does, 
with  all  propriety  it  might  be  express,  positive,  and 
permanent. 

But  the  theological  teaching  in  this  view  of  Bible 
treatment  of  chattel  slavery  is  open  to  very  serious 
objections.  It  admits  that  slavery  is  an  evil,  a 
moral  wrong  that  ought  not  to  exist,  that  ought  to 
be  repented  of  and  abandoned,  wherever  it  does 
exist.  It  also  represents  the  Bible  as  holding  a 
parley  with  it,  avoiding  much  direct  mention  of  it, 
and  seeking,  in  an  indirect  way,  its  gradual  aban- 
donment. So  far  as  all  this  applies  to  individual 
slaveholding,  we  regard  it  very  bad  theology  indeed. 
We  do  not  believe  that  the  "wise  and  scriptural" 
way  of  breaking  off  any  form  of  sin  whatever,  is  by 
gentle  degrees.  "We  do  not  think  that  the  sin  of 
chattelizing  human  beings  is  such  a  privileged  sort 
of  iniquity,  that  the  Bible  is  content  to  have  people 
"  roll  it  as  a  sweet  morsel  under  the  tongue  "  very 
leisurely  awhile,  as  if  to  dissolve  it  away  very  gently 
and  gradually.  We  do  not  judge  that  it  is  either 
the  doctrine  or  the  policy  of  the  Bible  that  people 
should  taper  off  any  kind  of  sin  by  convenient  de- 
grees. We  seem  to  hear  it  thundering  its  mighty 
maledictions  of  death  and  damnation  across  the 
pathway  of  every  poor  sinner,  warning  him  to  take 
24 


282  BIBLE    SERVITUDE    RE-EXAMINED. 

another  step  in  the  transgressor's  path  at  his  peril, 
and  we  can  not  think^that  it  only  asks  of  the  wretch 
who  robs  his  fellows  of  his  Adamic  and  God-given 
manhood,  and  degrades  him  to  a  mere  piece  of 
property,  to  repent  very  "  gradually,"  and  to  stop 
his  high-handed  and  heaven-daring  wickedness  little 
by  little,  spinning  out  the  final  issue  into  some 
indefinite  period  of  future  time.  This  looks  to  us 
like  a  gross  slander  upon  God's  Bible  and  its  theo- 
logical teaching. 

In  our  view,  the  Bible  does  meet  and  grapple 
directly  with  chattel  slavery,  classing  it,  with  terrible 
brevity  and  significance,  among  capital  crimes. 

With  similar  directness,  all  oppression  of  common, 
or  unchattelized  servants,  is  everywhere  met,  de- 
nounced, and  forbidden,  in  the  strongest  language. 
Throughout  both  Testaments,  all  trespass  upon  man- 
hood rights,  whether  in  the  shape  of  slavery  or  any 
thing  else,  is  met  face  to  face,  with  the  sternest 
maledictions.  Not  a  particle  of  this  sort  of  in- 
iquity is  "regulated,"  but  the  whole  of  it  is  de- 
nounced and  forbidden.  It  is  simply  flat  untruth 
to  assert  that  the  Bible  treats  it  in  a  very  "  gentle," 
"  bland,"  and  indirect  manner. 

Take  a  single  example  of  Bible  dealing  with  op- 
pression, which  is  the  Bible  word  for  all  trespass 
upon  personal  and  inalienable  rights.  "  The  people 
of  the  land  have  used  oppression,  and  exercised  rob- 
bery, and  have  vexed  the  poor  and  needy.  Yea, 
they  have  oppressed  the  stranger  wrongfully.  There- 


CRITICISMS.  283 

fore,  have  I  poured  out  mine  indignation  upon  them; 
I  have  consumed  them  with  the  fire  of  my  wrath." — 
Ezek.  xxii :  29.  How  plain  and  direct  the  charge 
here!  If  the  wickedness  complained  of  here  had 
reached  the  horrid  depth  of  slaveholding  outright, 
how  strong  and  faithful  the  description !  There  is 
no  circumlocution,  no  softening  of  terms,  no  "dodging 
lest  somebody's  negro-hating  "prejudices"  should 
be  disturbed.  The  charge  is  direct,  positive,  strong, 
and  emphatic.  And  then  how  terrible  the  threat- 
ening that  follows !  "I  have  CONSUMED  them  with 
the  fire  of  my  wrath !  "  FIRE  OF  GOD'S  WRATH  ! 
CONSUMED  with  that  fearful  fire !  And  shall  we  be 
told,  in  the  very  same  breath,  that  the  Bible  way 
of  treating  this  same  iniquity  is  very  "  gentle,"  and 
"  kind,"  and  "  bland,"  and  indirect,  as  if,  like  many, 
too  many  modern  teachers,  it  feared  to  disturb  the 
"existing  prejudices"  or  feelings  of  some  perpetra- 
tor of  this  abominable  crime? 

There  never  was  a  more  miserable  and  shallow 
delusion  than  this :  that  the  Bible  treats  slavehold- 
ing oppression,  or  any  other  form  of  oppression,  very 
tenderly.  Why,  it  is  enough  to  make  one's  blood 
run  chill  to  read  the  denunciations  of  the  Bible  on 
this  subject.  They  pervade  the  whole  Bible. 

Slavery,  as  a  system,  is  not  denounced ;  for  that 
would  mean  nothing :  but  all  trespass  upon  personal 
and  manhood  rights,  whether  in  the  shape  of  slave- 
holding,  or  any  thing  else,  is  everywhere  forbidden 
and  denounced,  but  never  regulated.  The  Bible 


284  BIBLE   SERVITUDE   RE-EXAMINED. 

does  not  regulate  iniquity,  but  forbids  it.  It  de- 
nounces eternal  death  upon  it.  It  demands  imme- 
diate repentance.  Our  God  is  a  direct,  terrible, 
and  "  swift  witness  "  against  all  sin,  and  especially 
"against  those  that  oppress  the  hireling  in  his 
wages,  the  widow  and  the  fatherless,  and  that  turn 
aside  the  stranger  from  his  right." 


THE     END. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


E       449.       H28B 


I 


PLEAt£  DO   NOT   REMOVE 
THISBOOK  CARDZJ 


3: 


• 


University  Research  Library 


o 


